Mormon view of Christians

[Krusader]

Often here Mormons have denied that they take a low view of the Christian Church (the "unrestored" church, that is!). The truth is found in the quotes from its leadership:

"Myself and hundreds of the elders around me have seen its (Christianity's) pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrups as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century," John Taylor, 3rd Prophet, Seer and Revelator).

"What is the church of the devil in our day, and where is the seat of its power...It is all the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel...It is communism; it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity IN ALL its parts." (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Apostle, the Millennial Messiah, pgs. 54-55).

"And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a MYTHICAL Christ whom they vainly suppose to be in a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit," (McConkie, Mormon Apostle, Mormon Doctrine, pg. 269). note: McConkie was apparently ignorant of the doctrine of the hypostatic union, as are most Mormons!

"We cannot accept that any other church can lead its members to salvation," (The Master's Church, Course !, Mormon Sunday School text).

"A more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world," (BY, JOD, Vol. 8, pg. 171).

"The whole (of) Christendom is as destitute of Bible Christianity as the idolatrous pagans," (Orson Pratt, pamphlet, pg. 38).

"What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast," (John Taylor, JOD, 6:25).

"(Speaking of Christians) Perfect pack of nonsense...as corrupt as hell...an invention of the devil," (John Taylor, JOD 6:171).

And the diatribe against Christianity goes on and on......and note that McConkie was living in the 20th and not the 19th century. The Mormons have lambasted Christians since Smith claimed to be the "restorer" of the faith....and why not? If Christianity is not totally apostate, there is no reason for a "restoration." It's too bad, however, that Mormon missionaries don't dare to share with potential converts the real "stuff" regarding the Mormon view of Christians - instead of always appearing to "agree" with Christians!

Were the above statements valid, it would mean that such great Christians as Spurgeon, Finney, Moody, Graham and many others were all pawns of Satan, preaching an apostate Christianity to an apostate flock. Well, it's easy to see why the enemies of the Gospel would attempt to paint such great Christians as apostates - any comments?

[furay]

Some of those quotes (especially the first) read exactly like many I've seen by Protestants attacking Catholics. Just found that parallel kind of humorous.

[Krusader]

Some of those quotes (especially the first) read exactly like many I've seen by Protestants attacking Catholics. Just found that parallel kind of humorous.

Or, even like those of Catholics who believe there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

Protestants, on the other hand, view belief in "salvation" by church as erroneous; we are saved by Christ.

The Mormon quotes are posted to combat their missionaries who are so often attempting to "relate" to Christians rather than to provide them with the actual position of Mormonism on Christians (Catholics included!).

[Goliath]

Or, even like those of Catholics who believe there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

Protestants, on the other hand, view belief in "salvation" by church as erroneous; we are saved by Christ.

The Mormon quotes are posted to combat their missionaries who are so often attempting to "relate" to Christians rather than to provide them with the actual position of Mormonism on Christians (Catholics included!).

Crusader: Isn't the official position of the Catholic Church that unless you are baptised and confirmed R.C., you are not saved? Anyway, back to teh Mormons, they have some nerve claiming that christians are evil when their Christ is brother to Lucifer of all beings! And, maybe you can answer this question Cru. When exactly, in the Mormon world, did Christianity end or die for there to be this apparent need for "restoration?" I think Joe Smith & Co. may have spent too much time working on the hemp barges. Goliath

[Krusader]

Crusader: Isn't the official position of the Catholic Church that unless you are baptised and confirmed R.C., you are not saved? Anyway, back to teh Mormons, they have some nerve claiming that christians are evil when their Christ is brother to Lucifer of all beings! And, maybe you can answer this question Cru. When exactly, in the Mormon world, did Christianity end or die for there to be this apparent need for "restoration?" I think Joe Smith & Co. may have spent too much time working on the hemp barges. Goliath

Hi Goliath: Well, I think the Catholics have the doctrine of "baptism of desire," ie., if you knew you needed to be Catholic to be saved and were never able to be baptized, you'd still be saved in the Catholic Church. Also, their recent catechism seems to say that Christ is not necessary for salvation - in other words, you can be a good Muslim and be saved. Basically, the RCs have jetissoned the teaching of Christ that no man can come to the Father BUT by Him.

Mormons claim that the Church went apostate shortly after the death of the Apostles, and certainly before the Council of Nicea. They have absolutely no proof of this, since there were many faithful Christians meeting in groups and not subject to the Pope or Roman errors.

The Catholics and Mormons define "church" as the authoritative institution which is outwardly visible. Protestants see the Church as the collective mystical body of all born-again believers. Given the Protestant definition, there never could have been a full apostasy of the Church while there still was even one born-again believer on the earth.

[Goliath]

Hi Goliath: Well, I think the Catholics have the doctrine of "baptism of desire," ie., if you knew you needed to be Catholic to be saved and were never able to be baptized, you'd still be saved in the Catholic Church. Also, their recent catechism seems to say that Christ is not necessary for salvation - in other words, you can be a good Muslim and be saved. Basically, the RCs have jetissoned the teaching of Christ that no man can come to the Father BUT by Him.

Mormons claim that the Church went apostate shortly after the death of the Apostles, and certainly before the Council of Nicea. They have absolutely no proof of this, since there were many faithful Christians meeting in groups and not subject to the Pope or Roman errors.

The Catholics and Mormons define "church" as the authoritative institution which is outwardly visible. Protestants see the Church as the collective mystical body of all born-again believers. Given the Protestant definition, there never could have been a full apostasy of the Church while there still was even one born-again believer on the earth.

Gee Cru, too bad no one told Calvin and Luther about that revelation! Goliath

[Krusader]

Gee Cru, too bad no one told Calvin and Luther about that revelation! Goliath

Calvin and Luther would have made minced meat of Joseph Smith!

[Goliath]

Calvin and Luther would have made minced meat of Joseph Smith!

Now those two guys could hold their own in a debate! Goliath

[LDSTrue]

Now those two guys could hold their own in a debate! Goliath

I can only assume that those two great "guys" would have given anything to have both the Father and Son appear to them and give them much needed direction and insight as they split away from...

[Krusader]

I can only assume that those two great "guys" would have given anything to have both the Father and Son appear to them and give them much needed direction and insight as they split away from...

Those "two guys" as you say, would have tested the spirits, to see if they were from God......not attempt to shake hands with them to identify whether they were Satanic or angelic spirits, as Smith advises in D&C!

[Nosnomis]

Those "two guys" as you say, would have tested the spirits, to see if they were from God......not attempt to shake hands with them to identify whether they were Satanic or angelic spirits, as Smith advises in D&C!

Again, I don't have much time, but how would you test the spirits to see whether or not they are of God?

[Krusader]

Again, I don't have much time, but how would you test the spirits to see whether or not they are of God?

Basically, according to the Epistle of John (1), you must test all spirits; those claiming that Jesus (the Jesus of the Bible) came in the flesh (as opposed to mystical, occultic, theosophical, gnostic, Islamic, views), are of God. According to Christian belief, this would exclude the Mormon Jesus - who, we believe, is not the Jesus of Scripture. Please forgive me, Jeth, for being candid with you - but I have to tell you the truth as I see it.

[LDSTrue]

Those "two guys" as you say, would have tested the spirits, to see if they were from God......not attempt to shake hands with them to identify whether they were Satanic or angelic spirits, as Smith advises in D&C!

Crusader, please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember Paul asking to shake anyones hand on the road to Damascus. It seems it was obvious to Paul that he was being visited by someone with great power and authority without the necessity of a handshake to help him come to a conclusion as to who the visitor was.

IMO, it must be extremely obvious to the one visited by Diety that the visitor is a God and not just some Spirit or Angel that requires testing.

IMO, Satin hides in the dark and runs from the light. I think Joseph Smith mentions a bright and glorious light when describing his incounters with the Father & Son and other hevenly messengers. He also mentions a darkness that was expelled as the glorious brightness fell upon him.

Seems to me that Joseph Smith and Paul have a lot in common.

Also, others above used "guys". I was just quoting them.

[LDSTrue]

Crusader, please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember Paul asking to shake anyones hand on the road to Damascus. It seems it was obvious to Paul that he was being visited by someone with great power and authority without the necessity of a handshake to help him come to a conclusion as to who the visitor was.

IMO, it must be extremely obvious to the one visited by Diety that the visitor is a God and not just some Spirit or Angel that requires testing.

IMO, Satin hides in the dark and runs from the light. I think Joseph Smith mentions a bright and glorious light when describing his incounters with the Father & Son and other hevenly messengers. He also mentions a darkness that was expelled as the glorious brightness fell upon him.

Seems to me that Joseph Smith and Paul have a lot in common.

Also, others above used "guys". I was just quoting them.

I meant Satan not Satin - Satan made me do it :blush:

[Dee Dee Warren]

IMO, Satin hides in the dark and runs from the light.

Incorrect. satan disguises himself as an angel of light. he figured out a long time ago that the red suit and pitchfork were a dead give away.

Honestly, the earlier Mormons were a much more respectable and honest cult. What do I mean by that? They believed they were right, had the true gospel, and acted in accordance with those convictions. The Jehovah's Witness remain that way - and I give them credit for that. I have no idea why mormons today would want to be a part of what their founder anathematized by alleged direct revelation from God.

I am firm in my faith, but I can honestly say this. When I see obviously intelligent people such as Kevin going through these contortions to believe something that would not even be a good B-grade movie, I question my own gullibility - but then again I do remember that satan is alive and well and seeking whom he may devour. I pray that you might step back and really take a hard honest look at the early history and reputation and character of your founder and contemporaries.

Either repudiate them and join orthodoxy, or at least have the courage of your convictions. To me the mormonism of today is an anemic and pathetic plea for acceptability.

I call it straight, and don't have time for niceties.

[Goliath]

Those "two guys" as you say, would have tested the spirits, to see if they were from God......not attempt to shake hands with them to identify whether they were Satanic or angelic spirits, as Smith advises in D&C!

Cru: and they didn't need to "see God and Jesus" in person. Like the story of Lazarus and the rich man, they had the scriptures. Goliath

[Goliath]

Crusader, please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember Paul asking to shake anyones hand on the road to Damascus. It seems it was obvious to Paul that he was being visited by someone with great power and authority without the necessity of a handshake to help him come to a conclusion as to who the visitor was.

IMO, it must be extremely obvious to the one visited by Diety that the visitor is a God and not just some Spirit or Angel that requires testing.

IMO, Satin hides in the dark and runs from the light. I think Joseph Smith mentions a bright and glorious light when describing his incounters with the Father & Son and other hevenly messengers. He also mentions a darkness that was expelled as the glorious brightness fell upon him.

Seems to me that Joseph Smith and Paul have a lot in common.

Also, others above used "guys". I was just quoting them.

LDS True: Smith and Paul had little in common. St. Paul was a pharisee who was persecuting the Christians of the early church. He received the visit from Christ and was knocked off his horse because that was the only way God could get his attention, so great was his zeal against Christians. So after his temporary blindness and visit from the Lord, he commited his life to Jesus Christ. He never dared to purvert the word of God. Goliath

[Goliath]

LDS True: Smith and Paul had little in common. St. Paul was a pharisee who was persecuting the Christians of the early church. He received the visit from Christ and was knocked off his horse because that was the only way God could get his attention, so great was his zeal against Christians. So after his temporary blindness and visit from the Lord, he commited his life to Jesus Christ. He never dared to purvert the word of God. Goliath
PS to my last quote. Last but not least, this event was brought to a disciple named Ananias by a vision from God. Ananias was instructed to find Paul, was given the location, and lay hands upon him. Ananias took Paul, who was by now blinded, and laid hands on him and his sight was restored. He was cared for by that group of Christians in Damascas until his strength returned and proceeded to embark on his ministry to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with the world. So you have confirmation that the event was to take place and direction from God to both men. Smith, on the other hand, cooked the entire tale up himself and changed the story several times. There was no one else to back up his "vision." And most importantly, the mormon Jesus is not the same as the Christian Jesus, who is God come to earth as man. It is not the reverse.

[Krusader]

PS to my last quote. Last but not least, this event was brought to a disciple named Ananias by a vision from God. Ananias was instructed to find Paul, was given the location, and lay hands upon him. Ananias took Paul, who was by now blinded, and laid hands on him and his sight was restored. He was cared for by that group of Christians in Damascas until his strength returned and proceeded to embark on his ministry to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with the world. So you have confirmation that the event was to take place and direction from God to both men. Smith, on the other hand, cooked the entire tale up himself and changed the story several times. There was no one else to back up his "vision." And most importantly, the mormon Jesus is not the same as the Christian Jesus, who is God come to earth as man. It is not the reverse.

Great point, Goliath. Also, Paul went to Jerusalem to submit his teachings to the Apostles, and to make sure what he was preaching was not in vain. He was given the right hand of fellowship, and acknowledged to be preaching the truth. Smith, on the other hand, was unwilling to submit to the Christian Church's leaders; instead he simply said everybody else but him was apostate, and went on his merry way "restoring" Christianity. He had no confirmation of his ministry (but his own tall tales), and was utterly rejected by the Christian leadership of his day.

[Goliath]

Amen Cru. I pray that one day every Mormon in creation will see the error of Joe Smith and turn to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. G.

[Nosnomis]

Goliath, you are confusing Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father. Jesus Christ was not a Man come down as God. Please do not imply that we believe otherwise.

Second, where are the sources that state that Joseph had changed his account of the First Vision? Where are these different accounts?

At the time of Paul, the Gospel had not yet been corrupted. There were still Apostles leading the Church.

During the time of Paul, there was only 1 Church of Christ, not the hundreds or so during the time of Joseph Smith, all of whom only had 2 doctrines in common and were fighting each other for a larger congregation.

[Krusader]

Goliath, you are confusing Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father. Jesus Christ was not a Man come down as God. Please do not imply that we believe otherwise.

Second, where are the sources that state that Joseph had changed his account of the First Vision? Where are these different accounts?

At the time of Paul, the Gospel had not yet been corrupted. There were still Apostles leading the Church.

During the time of Paul, there was only 1 Church of Christ, not the hundreds or so during the time of Joseph Smith, all of whom only had 2 doctrines in common and were fighting each other for a larger congregation.

Get a hold of "Divergent Paths of the Restoration" and acquaint yourself with how many divisions there have been since Smith established Mormonism.

[LDSTrue]

Calvin and Luther would have made minced meat of Joseph Smith![/QUOTE


[QUOTE=LDSTrue]I can only assume that those two great "guys" would have given anything to have both the Father and Son appear to them and give them much needed direction and insight as they split away from...


Cru: and they didn't need to "see God and Jesus" in person. Like the story of Lazarus and the rich man, they had the scriptures. Goliath

Goliath- Crusader: Did not the established religion that both Calvin and Luther split away from have "the scriptures"???

If the scriptures is all you need then how do you explain over 2,000 different churches today?

It's obvious that there was confusion in their day as in the day of Joseph Smith. Both Calvin and Luther were brave, courageous and inspired men, it is just that they were not called by Jesus Christ as a Prohpet or Apostle in their day as was Joseph Smith in his day.

Jesus decdied that it was time to end all the confusion and finally speak His mind and will to us in these latter days. How does He do that? As in times past, he calls a Prophet and speaks His will through him.

Did/has confusion ceased in all of Christendom since the split of Calvin and/or Luther with the church as a result of their interpretation?

It is obvious that you need more than scriptures and inspired men, you also neen a Prophet and Apostles called by Jesus, you know "the foundation".

LDSTrue!

[Bill the Cat]

[QUOTE=Crusader]Calvin and Luther would have made minced meat of Joseph Smith![/QUOTE






Goliath- Crusader: Did not the established religion that both Calvin and Luther split away from have "the scriptures"???

If the scriptures is all you need then how do you explain over 2,000 different churches today?

It's obvious that there was confusion in their day as in the day of Joseph Smith. Both Calvin and Luther were brave, courageous and inspired men, it is just that they were not called by Jesus Christ as a Prohpet or Apostle in their day as was Joseph Smith in his day.

Jesus decdied that it was time to end all the confusion and finally speak His mind and will to us in these latter days. How does He do that? As in times past, he calls a Prophet and speaks His will through him.

Did/has confusion ceased in all of Christendom since the split of Calvin and/or Luther with the church as a result of their interpretation?

It is obvious that you need more than scriptures and inspired men, you also neen a Prophet and Apostles called by Jesus, you know "the foundation".

LDSTrue!
:rofl:

Man, the missionaries couldn't have said it better!!!

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=Crusader]Calvin and Luther would have made minced meat of Joseph Smith![/QUOTE






Goliath- Crusader: Did not the established religion that both Calvin and Luther split away from have "the scriptures"???

If the scriptures is all you need then how do you explain over 2,000 different churches today?

It's obvious that there was confusion in their day as in the day of Joseph Smith. Both Calvin and Luther were brave, courageous and inspired men, it is just that they were not called by Jesus Christ as a Prohpet or Apostle in their day as was Joseph Smith in his day.

Jesus decdied that it was time to end all the confusion and finally speak His mind and will to us in these latter days. How does He do that? As in times past, he calls a Prophet and speaks His will through him.

Did/has confusion ceased in all of Christendom since the split of Calvin and/or Luther with the church as a result of their interpretation?

It is obvious that you need more than scriptures and inspired men, you also neen a Prophet and Apostles called by Jesus, you know "the foundation".

LDSTrue!

If you have a prophet and aposltes, why have there been hundreds of splits from the Utah Church - and why did Smith give his son, Joseph, the right to lead the church - and that church was the Reorganized church?

It seems that anybody coming out of a cave saying, "Yay and behold, gird up your loins, for I am the One Mighty and Strong," has a following. And, well he should, since Smith has just as much proof for his calling as any of these other "prophets."

[Deren]

[QUOTE=Crusader]If the scriptures is all you need then how do you explain over 2,000 different churches today?

The number of different churches is not an issue. It's what distinguishes those churches from one another as revealed in scripture, if they claim to be Christian. For all churches are not created equal, and not all churches claiming to be Christian, as revealed in scripture, are necessarily Christian either (i.e., the Mormon Church). In other words, Christian churches are such because of what they believe it takes for a person to become a Christian, which is the grace of God and faith in His Son. Clearly, Mormonism falls outside the biblical description of Christian, given that it defies that grace and faith are the only two elements necessary to becoming a Christian. In their place, Mormonism advocates a laundry list of works that are needed in a cooperative effort to self-justify oneself before God as "worthy" to become a "Christian." Add to that another laundry list of aberrant doctrinal positions concerning God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, man, the church, demonology, etc., and Mormonism fits the theologically descriptive term "cult" to the T.

So, LDS, it would behoove you that before you try and equate what is going on in the Christian world with what is going on the in the LDS world, as far as numbers are concerned, to realize that regardless of the number of churches there may be in Christianity, Mormonism is not Christian to begin with. Besides, truth is not predicated upon how many have it, but whether they have it at all. And Mormonism has clearly demonstrated that when it comes to possessing the theological/soteriological truth necessary to reconcile one to God, thereby making one a Christian, it not only lacks truth, but conversely is propagating a lie consistent with the relationship it genuinely has, and that is with its father, the Devil.

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=LDSTrue]

The number of different churches is not an issue. It's what distinguishes those churches from one another as revealed in scripture, if they claim to be Christian. For all churches are not created equal, and not all churches claiming to be Christian, as revealed in scripture, are necessarily Christian either (i.e., the Mormon Church). In other words, Christian churches are such because of what they believe it takes for a person to become a Christian, which is the grace of God and faith in His Son. Clearly, Mormonism falls outside the biblical description of Christian, given that it defies that grace and faith are the only two elements necessary to becoming a Christian. In their place, Mormonism advocates a laundry list of works that are needed in a cooperative effort to self-justify oneself before God as "worthy" to become a "Christian." Add to that another laundry list of aberrant doctrinal positions concerning God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, man, the church, demonology, etc., and Mormonism fits the theologically descriptive term "cult" to the T.

So, LDS, it would behoove you that before you try and equate what is going on in the Christian world with what is going on the in the LDS world, as far as numbers are concerned, to realize that regardless of the number of churches there may be in Christianity, Mormonism is not Christian to begin with. Besides, truth is not predicated upon how many have it, but whether they have it at all. And Mormonism has clearly demonstrated that when it comes to possessing the theological/soteriological truth necessary to reconcile one to God, thereby making one a Christian, it not only lacks truth, but conversely is propagating a lie consistent with the relationship it genuinely has, and that is with its father, the Devil.

Deren, I would like to point out that I didn't make the statement about, "if the Bible is all you need, why do you have 2,000..........etc." I think Jeth or LDS True made that statement - which I refuted above.

[Krusader]

Goliath, you are confusing Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father. Jesus Christ was not a Man come down as God. Please do not imply that we believe otherwise.

Second, where are the sources that state that Joseph had changed his account of the First Vision? Where are these different accounts?

At the time of Paul, the Gospel had not yet been corrupted. There were still Apostles leading the Church.

During the time of Paul, there was only 1 Church of Christ, not the hundreds or so during the time of Joseph Smith, all of whom only had 2 doctrines in common and were fighting each other for a larger congregation.

Jeth, you have asked where are the various accounts of Smith's first vision. Smith gave many accounts of it, and so did his contemporaries. Please go to the following site to view the various accounts:

http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Accounts.html

[LDSTrue]

[QUOTE=LDSTrue]

The number of different churches is not an issue. It's what distinguishes those churches from one another as revealed in scripture, if they claim to be Christian. For all churches are not created equal, and not all churches claiming to be Christian, as revealed in scripture, are necessarily Christian either (i.e., the Mormon Church). In other words, Christian churches are such because of what they believe it takes for a person to become a Christian, which is the grace of God and faith in His Son. Clearly, Mormonism falls outside the biblical description of Christian, given that it defies that grace and faith are the only two elements necessary to becoming a Christian. In their place, Mormonism advocates a laundry list of works that are needed in a cooperative effort to self-justify oneself before God as "worthy" to become a "Christian." Add to that another laundry list of aberrant doctrinal positions concerning God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, man, the church, demonology, etc., and Mormonism fits the theologically descriptive term "cult" to the T.

So, LDS, it would behoove you that before you try and equate what is going on in the Christian world with what is going on the in the LDS world, as far as numbers are concerned, to realize that regardless of the number of churches there may be in Christianity, Mormonism is not Christian to begin with. Besides, truth is not predicated upon how many have it, but whether they have it at all. And Mormonism has clearly demonstrated that when it comes to possessing the theological/soteriological truth necessary to reconcile one to God, thereby making one a Christian, it not only lacks truth, but conversely is propagating a lie consistent with the relationship it genuinely has, and that is with its father, the Devil.

Deren:

You continue to provide me with opportunities to warn you.

Matthew 12:36-37 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned".

Do you suppose that scripture could include Tweb words you post?

Let's keep it respectable, I don't want you, at the day of you judgement, blaming me for making you say things that you will be condemned for.
You know, something like, it's not my fault, blame LDSTrue, he made me say it!

This time I didn't, you said the above unsolicited from me. It is on our head!

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=Deren]

Deren:

You continue to provide me with opportunities to warn you.

Matthew 12:36-37 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned".

Do you suppose that scripture could include Tweb words you post?

Let's keep it respectable, I don't want you, at the day of you judgement, blaming me for making you say things that you will be condemned for.
You know, something like, it's not my fault, blame LDSTrue, he made me say it!

This time I didn't, you said the above unsolicited from me. It is on our head!

If you don't want to debate the issues, but rather just use this as a platform for warning Christians not to question Mormonism, then why are you here? You can always go to some LDS site where everybody will agree with you.

[LDSTrue]

[QUOTE]If you have a prophet and aposltes, why have there been hundreds of splits from the Utah Church

I can only guess, I wasn't there when they split and I personally don't know any. However, I think it could have been because "30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." (Acts 20: 29-30) It's not the first time it has happened to the Church of Jesus Christ, and unfortunately, it wasn’t the last. That explanation is from a very good source. Does that help your understanding? No one looses their free agency because Jesus calls Prophets and Apostles to lead His church.

"hundreds"??? Can you name the top 10? Please start with the ones that claim to have a living Prophet and Apostles receiving revelation directly from Jesus for the body of the restored Church today.


- and why did Smith give his son, Joseph, the right to lead the church - and that church was the Reorganized church?

It was never Joseph’s’ to give and he knew it. Joseph Smith knew without a doubt that he was called by Jesus to start and lead His Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Joseph Smith knew that Jesus determined leadership in the Church. Leadership in the Church was determined by Jesus and revealed to Joseph by and through the Holy Ghost. Leadership, Prophet, Apostles, etc. is a calling given to those who are prepared, qualified, worthy, called of God and sustained by the Church membership, for starters. I don’t suppose his son was qualified or met the criteria at the time of the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. Could that be why Jesus didn’t extend the call? Does that help? Jesus was and is in charge! It’s apparent that Jesus chose Brigham Young and boy, was he the right choice or what!


It seems that anybody coming out of a cave saying, "Yay and behold, gird up your loins, for I am the One Mighty and Strong," has a following. And, well he should, since Smith has just as much proof for his calling as any of these other "prophets."


Where is your faith Cru? (May I call you Cru :wink: )

The Lord insists that you exercise your faith before you receive a sure knowledge. Haven’t you heard, if you exercise your faith in true Heavenly messengers and messages, your faith will be rewarded. Heaven will see to it that you will receive a sure knowledge of the truth. It is a promise. When Heaven tells you it is true, you will know to the very marrow of your bones, that it is undeniably true. My advice is that you put the Holy Ghost to work, it is recorded that He will reward your sincere efforts. The right attitude (read humble and teachable here) will go a long way in assisting the Holy Ghost reveal the truth to you. Don’t worry, satan does not have the power to duplicate the effect the Holy Ghost can have on you. There will be no doubt that a member of the Godhead touched you when and if it happens. Paul of Tarsus is a good example. Don’t cheat yourself, go for it!

I sincerely appreciate your questions and it is my hope that I have helped your understanding in a big way.

LDSTrue!

[Deren]

The Lord insists that you exercise your faith before you receive a sure knowledge.

And where does faith come from LDS?


Haven’t you heard, if you exercise your faith in true Heavenly messengers and messages, your faith will be rewarded.

No. Where does it say this?


Heaven will see to it that you will receive a sure knowledge of the truth. It is a promise. When Heaven tells you it is true, you will know to the very marrow of your bones, that it is undeniably true.

Where does it say this?


My advice is that you put the Holy Ghost to work, it is recorded that He will reward your sincere efforts. The right attitude (read humble and teachable here) will go a long way in assisting the Holy Ghost reveal the truth to you.

The Holy Spirit has revealed to me the absolute certainty that Mormonism is false. Why aren't you listening, LDS?


Don’t worry, satan does not have the power to duplicate the effect the Holy Ghost can have on you.

Funny, that's not what the inspired word of God says. "

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds.


There will be no doubt that a member of the Godhead touched you when and if it happens. Paul of Tarsus is a good example. Don’t cheat yourself, go for it!

Again, the Holy Spirit has made it perfectly clear that Mormonism is a lie, and that you, LDS, are as lost as they come. So, what's preventing you from becoming a born again Christian?

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=Crusader]


Where is your faith Cru? (May I call you Cru :wink: )

The Lord insists that you exercise your faith before you receive a sure knowledge. Haven’t you heard, if you exercise your faith in true Heavenly messengers and messages, your faith will be rewarded. Heaven will see to it that you will receive a sure knowledge of the truth. It is a promise. When Heaven tells you it is true, you will know to the very marrow of your bones, that it is undeniably true. My advice is that you put the Holy Ghost to work, it is recorded that He will reward your sincere efforts. The right attitude (read humble and teachable here) will go a long way in assisting the Holy Ghost reveal the truth to you. Don’t worry, satan does not have the power to duplicate the effect the Holy Ghost can have on you. There will be no doubt that a member of the Godhead touched you when and if it happens. Paul of Tarsus is a good example. Don’t cheat yourself, go for it!

I sincerely appreciate your questions and it is my hope that I have helped your understanding in a big way.

LDSTrue!

Where is my faith? More appropriately, "in Whom do I put my faith?" I don't trust my church to save me, nor the sacraments, nor being baptized, nor my pastor, nor my reading the Bible, doing many good works, giving my body to be burned, etc., to save me. I trust only in the shed Blood of Jesus Christ to pay the wages of my sin - eternal death - and to make me a child of God. By the way, your own Book of Moses says the same.

Where do you get the idea that we must exercise faith in "true heavenly messengers?" Have you tested those messengers according to the Word of God, or more importantly, did Smith? Not every one or thing claiming to be a messenger from heaven is of God - for many false prophets have gone out into the world. You have been misled, and are now misleading others.

If anybody brings you another gospel (and this is what Mormonism is), we are to call him anathema. Joseph Smith is anathema, as well as those who pitch his false doctrines. You are a victim of deception, but if you search the Scriptures with an open heart and mind, calling upon the Holy Spirit for guidance, God will answer you.

And by the way, I bear you testimony that the Holy Spirit has given me a strong discernment that Mormonism and the Book of Mormon are a deception, and this has been confirmed to me through reading the Scriptures.

[LDSTrue]

[QUOTE=LDSTrue]

If you don't want to debate the issues, but rather just use this as a platform for warning Christians not to question Mormonism, then why are you here? You can always go to some LDS site where everybody will agree with you.


It's not that I don't want to debate the issues or stop people from questioning Mormonism, it's that it is not done in/with REVERENCE[I][U]. :wink:

No, really, some of the terms used and remarks stated have been totally uncalled for and seems to be filled with unwarranted ranker and hostility.

I could cut and paste some remarks here that I'm sure would not be uttered in the presence of Deity. Aren't all good Christians to act as if Jesus was by their side? I doubt He (Jesus) would be in the presence of persons making such spiteful remarks.

It is obvious that I know something Deren and the like don't. I have taken advantage of the challenge to find out if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true and my efforts have been miraculously rewarded. I'm not saying I am special or anything like that, the invitation is open to all who will. There are many millions with the same witness and the number is growing. (You could be one if you would only earnestly accept the challenge)

I know that every harsh word and false allegation will be answered for at judgement and it could be very distressing for those who ...

I'm just trying to remind those who would use excessive language of that fact so they will not have to answer for their part in all the distortion and slander being bandied about.

"Can't we all just get along" :eek:

LDSTrue!

[Deren]

It is obvious that I know something Deren and the like don't. I have taken advantage of the challenge to find out if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true and my efforts have been miraculously rewarded. I'm not saying I am special or anything like that, the invitation is open to all who will. There are many millions with the same witness and the number is growing. (You could be one if you would only earnestly accept the challenge)

Excuse me, but why did you dodge all my questions, and then write this piece of offense? I thought you wanted to be friends?:ahem:

[Krusader]

LDS True: Just how have you gone about finding out that Mormonism is true? Have you had a personal visitation from the Godhead in a hidden grove? Has Joseph Smith come to you from the spirit-world ? (I actually had a Mormon missionary tell me that once). Have you compared Mormonism to the Bible and found such things as secret temple ceremonies and handshakes necessary to enter the celestial kingdom? Have you found anything in the Bible telling you that if you are an obedient Mormon you will evolve into a god with your own planet and celestial wives producing spirit babies?

Exactly how did you ascertain that Mormonism is true?

[LDSTrue]

Excuse me, but why did you dodge all my questions, and then write this piece of offense? I thought you wanted to be friends?:ahem:

I am sorry Deren, I didn't notice your post before I split.

I didn't intentionally dodge your inquiries, I appreciate your questions and will reply today. I appreciate your civility.

I look forward to helping you understand my position "friend".

LDSTrue!

[LDSTrue]

:rofl:


[QUOTE]Goliath- Crusader: Did not the established religion that both Calvin and Luther split away from have "the scriptures"???

If the scriptures is all you need then how do you explain over 2,000 different churches today?

It's obvious that there was confusion in their day as in the day of Joseph Smith. Both Calvin and Luther were brave, courageous and inspired men, it is just that they were not called by Jesus Christ as a Prophet or Apostle in their day as was Joseph Smith in his day.

Jesus decided that it was time to end all the confusion and finally speak His mind and will to us in these latter days. How does He do that? As in times past, he calls a Prophet and speaks His will through him.

Did/has confusion ceased in all of Christendom since the split of Calvin and/or Luther with the church as a result of their interpretation?

It is obvious that you need more than scriptures and inspired men, you also need a Prophet and Apostles called by Jesus, you know "the foundation".

LDSTrue!


Man, the missionaries couldn't have said it better!!!

Bill, it is encouraging to me personally that you realize that TRUTH is universal regardless of the source. Your statement indicates to me that you recognized the truth in my post as well as the Mormon missionaries statements (A second witness!).

I'm going to consider that progress in the right direction on your account. :teeth:

THANK YOU!

LDSTrue!

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=Bill the Cat]

Bill, it is encouraging to me personally that you realize that TRUTH is universal regardless of the source. Your statement indicates to me that you recognized the truth in my post as well as the Mormon missionaries statements (A second witness!).

I'm going to consider that progress in the right direction on your account. :teeth:

THANK YOU!

LDSTrue!


LDS True, have you lost touch with reality?

[Nosnomis]

LDS True: Just how have you gone about finding out that Mormonism is true? Have you had a personal visitation from the Godhead in a hidden grove? Has Joseph Smith come to you from the spirit-world ? (I actually had a Mormon missionary tell me that once). Have you compared Mormonism to the Bible and found such things as secret temple ceremonies and handshakes necessary to enter the celestial kingdom? Have you found anything in the Bible telling you that if you are an obedient Mormon you will evolve into a god with your own planet and celestial wives producing spirit babies?

Exactly how did you ascertain that Mormonism is true?

I know that this is addressed to LDSTrue, but may I offer the story of my personal conversion? I have been born and raised LDS, living, as some may say, on borrowed light. Once, during Sacrament meeting when I was 15, the speaker quoted a General Authority about the need for us to recieve our own testimony. I had realized that I did not have a testimony of the Church at the time, and resolved to learn for myself. I fasted and prayed, but did not recieve any answer immediately. While I was praying, and crying for an answer, two scriptoral references came into my mind. The first was found in John 7:17, and the second was found in Ether 12:6. While I did not ever remember reading the verse from John, and am well known in my Seminary class for having a hard time remembering what individual verses said, I could, at the instant the verses came into my mind know what each verse said. John 7:17 quotes If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Ether 12:6 is of course, a well known verse on faith, and it says And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith. After recalling these verses, I was impressed that I should continue on in the Church without a knowledge for a time, and that the knowledge of whether or not the Church is true would be made known to me eventually.

Three years passed until this past February, and I still had not gotten my testimony of the Gospel. In February I went to my High School version of Anytown camp, called Hawktown IX. I was the only LDS person there, and I found that everyone was going to be presenting their religion to everyone else in one of the activities. In this activity, each group was to be given 7 minutes to give a presentation about their religion and answer questions. I was upset, because how can I represent the Church if I still did not have a testimony of whether or not it's true? The day before the presentations began, I skipped dinner, went onto a large boulder by my cabin, and once again poured out my heart to know whether the Church was true or not, as I felt that I could not present the Church if I did not have a testimony. It was then, during that prayer that I received my confirmation of the Divinity of the Church. There was no heavenly angels appearing before, no visions, nothing that people would find spectacular. I felt all my worries leave me, I felt happiness and peace envelop me. The burning of the bosom that is mentioned in D&C 9:8, I did not just feel within my heart, I felt it all over my body. I felt confident that the Holy Spirit would attend me tomorrow when I gave my presentation. It is very hard for me to describe all I felt, and I can only say that those who have learned for themselves the truth can rightly understand how I felt.

After the prayer, I felt inspiration enter me, and I immediately set to work on another poster to use in the presentation instead of the one I had already made. Sunday, when it was time for me to give my presentation, I stood alone (except for the person who was holding my poster, a Baptist IIRC) up there in front of about 100 people, and I gave a wonderful presentation. Often, when I talk in front of large crowds, I stutter, lose my train of thought, and repeat myself. In other words, I am not a really good public speaker. This presentation, none of that happened. I followed the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and finished the presentation in time to answer three questions. To compare, some groups had nothing to say after about one and a half minutes. After the presentation, and after the activity was over, much of my evening was spent being complimented on how wonderful my presentation was, and answering questions about the Church. I know that I had help during the presentation, as I have never had such skill in Public Speaking since, and many of the things I talked about, I did not think of mentioning in my original presentation. If I did not have help and guidence, I would have given a poor presentation. I am still so very thankful for the help that I have recieved on that occasion, and do consider it a small modern-day miracle.

[Krusader]

I know that this is addressed to LDSTrue, but may I offer the story of my personal conversion? I have been born and raised LDS, living, as some may say, on borrowed light. Once, during Sacrament meeting when I was 15, the speaker quoted a General Authority about the need for us to recieve our own testimony. I had realized that I did not have a testimony of the Church at the time, and resolved to learn for myself. I fasted and prayed, but did not recieve any answer immediately. While I was praying, and crying for an answer, two scriptoral references came into my mind. The first was found in John 7:17, and the second was found in Ether 12:6. While I did not ever remember reading the verse from John, and am well known in my Seminary class for having a hard time remembering what individual verses said, I could, at the instant the verses came into my mind know what each verse said. John 7:17 quotes If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Ether 12:6 is of course, a well known verse on faith, and it says And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith. After recalling these verses, I was impressed that I should continue on in the Church without a knowledge for a time, and that the knowledge of whether or not the Church is true would be made known to me eventually.

Three years passed until this past February, and I still had not gotten my testimony of the Gospel. In February I went to my High School version of Anytown camp, called Hawktown IX. I was the only LDS person there, and I found that everyone was going to be presenting their religion to everyone else in one of the activities. In this activity, each group was to be given 7 minutes to give a presentation about their religion and answer questions. I was upset, because how can I represent the Church if I still did not have a testimony of whether or not it's true? The day before the presentations began, I skipped dinner, went onto a large boulder by my cabin, and once again poured out my heart to know whether the Church was true or not, as I felt that I could not present the Church if I did not have a testimony. It was then, during that prayer that I received my confirmation of the Divinity of the Church. There was no heavenly angels appearing before, no visions, nothing that people would find spectacular. I felt all my worries leave me, I felt happiness and peace envelop me. The burning of the bosom that is mentioned in D&C 9:8, I did not just feel within my heart, I felt it all over my body. I felt confident that the Holy Spirit would attend me tomorrow when I gave my presentation. It is very hard for me to describe all I felt, and I can only say that those who have learned for themselves the truth can rightly understand how I felt.

After the prayer, I felt inspiration enter me, and I immediately set to work on another poster to use in the presentation instead of the one I had already made. Sunday, when it was time for me to give my presentation, I stood alone (except for the person who was holding my poster, a Baptist IIRC) up there in front of about 100 people, and I gave a wonderful presentation. Often, when I talk in front of large crowds, I stutter, lose my train of thought, and repeat myself. In other words, I am not a really good public speaker. This presentation, none of that happened. I followed the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and finished the presentation in time to answer three questions. To compare, some groups had nothing to say after about one and a half minutes. After the presentation, and after the activity was over, much of my evening was spent being complimented on how wonderful my presentation was, and answering questions about the Church. I know that I had help during the presentation, as I have never had such skill in Public Speaking since, and many of the things I talked about, I did not think of mentioning in my original presentation. If I did not have help and guidence, I would have given a poor presentation. I am still so very thankful for the help that I have recieved on that occasion, and do consider it a small modern-day miracle.

This is a very nice sounding testimony. However, Jeth, having a warm fuzzy feeling all over your body is not what the Scriptures teach to be the way we discern truth.

First of all, I see nothing here about regeneration. In other words, when did you personally receive Jesus (of the Bible) as your personal Savior after repenting of your sins and realizing that Christ and Christ alone (not church, ordinances, priesthood, etc.) is the only ONE who can save you?

Until you have done that, you cannot receive the Holy Spirit of Promise who will guide you into all truth.

Second, I see nothing here of you examining the Bible and comparing it with the teachings of Mormonism. You simply assumed that the Book of Mormon, and the additional Mormon works, were true. This would be like a Buddhist or Hindu assuming that their holy books were true. Had you sat down with your Bible and really done a study of Mormon doctrine vs. the Bible, I think you would not have had such a warm fuzzy feeling.

Had a Christian been asked to explain his religion, the first thing and possibly the only thing a Christian would speak of would be the time he/she accepted the Lord Jesus as his/her personal Savior. It is this regenerative experience (often referred to as being "born again") that places us in the Church founded by Christ.

I've had Mormon missionaries tell me all kinds of gooey stories (some complete with visions) on how they embraced Mormonism and got their testimony - never once, however, has any Mormon told me that they sat down with their Bible, prayed for guidance, and come away with the knowledge that Mormonism is found in the Christian Scriptures.....because, Jeth, it just "ain't.

Sorry Jeth, but getting a "testimony" about a church is all you seemed concerned about - you left Christ out of the equation, son, and that is your problem. Muslims, Bahais, Hindus, Christian Scientists, Hare Krishnas, etc. can all match the story you told - it's always a "testimony" about the "trueness" of their particular cult or sect. What you need to do, Jeth, is meet Jesus and stop worrying about what church you're in.

[LDSTrue]

And where does faith come from LDS?

Thank you for asking Deren, my faith comes from HOPE!
Heb. 11: 1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Also: Titus 1:2 "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;"
Also Rom 8: 24 "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?"


Quote: Originally posted by LDS
Haven’t you heard, if you exercise your faith in true Heavenly messengers and messages, your faith will be rewarded


No. Where does it say this?

Matt. 4:17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say Repent: for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." (A true Heavenly messenger with a message wouldn't you say?)

Matt. 10:40-41 "40He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. 41He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a rightous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward."



Quote: Originally posted by LDS
Heaven will see to it that you will receive a sure knowledge of the truth. It is a promise. When Heaven tells you it is true, you will know to the very marrow of your bones, that it is undeniably true.


Where does it say this?

Act:5:32 "And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."

John 16;13-14 "13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come. He will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."


The Holy Spirit has revealed to me the absolute certainty that Mormonism is false. Why aren't you listening, LDS?

I have proven to the Lord that I have "ears to hear".

However, I equate you and others here with Paul of Tarsus. He was very intellectual and positive he was correct in his version of the Gospel. Like Paul, you don’t believe the true church restored is right before your very eyes and yet, IT IS! You seem as positive and convinced of your interpretation and beliefs as Paul was before his conversion, yet, you must agree that he was wrong.

Paul was sent to the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ to receive truth and instruction. He was to receive light (sight) that would dispel the darkness (blindness) that encompassed him by accepting the true and correct gospel. Although Paul was sincere and proficient in his beliefs, he was still dead wrong wasn’t he.You have an opportunity to accept teachings from the Lord’s Apostles as did Paul. Will you hear and accept the teachings or will you follow the poor example of Paul and hold the "raiment."

You have the exact choice before you. Pauls original thoughts about the Church and the Apostles were wrong and you are wrong today in your rejection of the Apostles of His restored church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Paul was converted because he saw the Lord. The Lord says … “blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”



Quote: Originally posted by LDS
Don’t worry, satan does not have the power to duplicate the effect the Holy Ghost can have on you.


Funny, that's not what the inspired word of God says. "

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds.


What does your comment and scripture quotes have to do with truth being confirmed by Holy Ghost?

Act:5:32 "And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."


Again, the Holy Spirit has made it perfectly clear that Mormonism is a lie, and that you, LDS, are as lost as they come. So, what's preventing you from becoming a born again Christian?


you, LDS, are as lost as they come.

Am I to assume that you mean by that comment that I am immersed and deeply entrenched in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
THANK YOU!!! You could not have given me a more precious or valuable complement!

If you knew me, you would say that I have been born again. I have had the baptism of fire from the Holy Ghost and I will forever be grateful to the Lord.

I hope I have helped you head toward the true light of the true restored Gospel. Don't be a pre-conversion Paul, be a post-conversion Paul :teeth:

LDSTrue!

[LDSTrue]

[QUOTE=LDSTrue]


LDS True, have you lost touch with reality?

:eek:

[sowerowrd]

One question I have for you, please answer with utmost honsety. Who is Jesus Christ? The way that you answer this question will let you know if you have the Holy Spirit or not.

One observation I have for you, just because we as humasn have a spiritual experience does not mean that the experinece was or is from God Almighty. The demons of Satan can give you all the warm fuzzies you want to lead someone away from the Truth of Christ Almighty. Be careful that you do not attribute the work of a demonic spirit to the Holy Spirit of God and vice versa

By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confesss that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard was coming into the world, and now is already in the world.

Christ is not the brother of Satan, he is the Creator of Satan. He is the Lord God Almighty, nothing less. :ponder:

[Deren]

Thank you for asking Deren, my faith comes from HOPE!

Therefore, your faith is abstract and impersonal. And if that is the case, then just what is it really worth?

LDS, you were asked in reference to your comment, "Haven’t you heard, if you exercise your faith in true Heavenly messengers and messages, your faith will be rewarded," "No. Where does it say this?" You responded by quoting Matt. 4:17; 10:40-41, without any further comment. Yet, Matt. 4:17 is dealing with Jesus' preaching ministry and repentance, and 10:40-41 is dealing with Jesus' disciples. In neither place is there any comment that is even remotely close to what you state above, nor is there an exhortation to the effect that you assert. Now, once again, just where in the Bible is there an explicit comment stating, "if you exercise your faith in true Heavenly messengers and messages, your faith will be rewarded?"

LDS, then you said, "Heaven will see to it that you will receive a sure knowledge of the truth. It is a promise. When Heaven tells you it is true, you will know to the very marrow of your bones, that it is undeniably true," to which I asked, "Where does it say this?" Your reply was to quote Acts 5:32 and John 16:13-14. Again, in neither quote is there a mention about Heaven saying anything, much less is there this assurance that "to the very marrow of your bones, that is it is undeniably true." In fact, if one really thinks about what John 16 is saying, it would refute the whole idea behind Mormonism and Joseph Smith's supposed visions in the woods, and additional written revelation, and the idea about praying for a "burning in the bosom" to see whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. Therefore, once again, where is the explicit support for your statement?

Then you were asked, "The Holy Spirit has revealed to me [Deren] the absolute certainty that Mormonism is false. Why aren't you listening, LDS?" You replied, "I have proven to the Lord that I have "ears to hear".

However, I equate you and others here with Paul of Tarsus. He was very intellectual and positive he was correct in his version of the Gospel. Like Paul, you don’t believe the true church restored is right before your very eyes and yet, IT IS! You seem as positive and convinced of your interpretation and beliefs as Paul was before his conversion, yet, you must agree that he was wrong.

Paul was sent to the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ to receive truth and instruction. He was to receive light (sight) that would dispel the darkness (blindness) that encompassed him by accepting the true and correct gospel. Although Paul was sincere and proficient in his beliefs, he was still dead wrong wasn’t he.You have an opportunity to accept teachings from the Lord’s Apostles as did Paul. Will you hear and accept the teachings or will you follow the poor example of Paul and hold the "raiment."

You have the exact choice before you. Pauls original thoughts about the Church and the Apostles were wrong and you are wrong today in your rejection of the Apostles of His restored church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Paul was converted because he saw the Lord. The Lord says … “blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”[/quote]

This is not an adequate answer at all, for Paul was a converted Pharisee, who lived by the mandates of the law until his conversion. I, on the other hand, have no such pedigree. I am merely a born again Christian, led of God's Spirit as directed through God's word. And because of that direction and guidance have come to conclude that such entities as Mormonism are a complete fraud. So, you're attempted equivocation falls flat, and the question you still need to answer is, "Why are you not listening, if indeed you supposedly have these ears to hear?"

Then you were rebutted for making this comment: "Don’t worry, satan does not have the power to duplicate the effect the Holy Ghost can have on you," with a quote from 2 Cor. 11:13-15, which says, "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds." To which you replied with, "What does your comment and scripture quotes have to do with truth being confirmed by Holy Ghost?" The rebuttal clearly shows that Satan is quite capable of duplicating the effects of what Mormons believe is attributable to the Holy Ghost. Because Mormonism is predicated upon subjectivism, not objectivity, when it comes to the Holy Spirit, as its members rely upon physical feelings and sensations that they think is attributable to the Spirit of God. And since they believe all the warm sensations cannot be duplicated by Satan, then they automatically must be coming from the Spirit, when such thinking is erroneous to the nth degree. Satan can, and typical does, immitate what God does all the time, and when he can get human beings to rely upon their fallen natures to determine what is and what is not of God, then he will capitalize on that fault time and again until the human understands that truth is based on God and his objective word, not upon physical, subjective feelings.

Finally, I said, "Again, the Holy Spirit has made it perfectly clear that Mormonism is a lie, and that you, LDS, are as lost as they come. So, what's preventing you from becoming a born again Christian?" You said: Am I to assume that you mean by that comment that I am immersed and deeply entrenched in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
THANK YOU!!! You could not have given me a more precious or valuable complement!

I was not a compliment, though. It was a question of why, since the Spirit has revealed that Mormonism is a lie, that you keep supporting it by refusing to become a Christian through a born again experience as found only in the Bible?


If you knew me, you would say that I have been born again. I have had the baptism of fire from the Holy Ghost and I will forever be grateful to the Lord.

I know you through your words, and have easily concluded that you are neither born again, nor even know what that means. And the fire you're going to be experiencing one day, if you remain in your degenerate state, is not going to be coming from the Holy Spirit. It's going to be coming from a trip to hell.


I hope I have helped you head toward the true light of the true restored Gospel. Don't be a pre-conversion Paul, be a post-conversion Paul

Actually, the only thing you have provided is an even clearer picture of just how lost you really are, and you aren't even aware of it!

[LDSTrue]

To Deren, (aka Paul of Tarsus) :wink:


Quote: Originally posted by LDS
Thank you for asking Deren, my faith comes from HOPE!

Therefore, your faith is abstract and impersonal. And if that is the case, then just what is it really worth


Rom 15:13 "Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, through the power of the Holy Ghost."

Deren, hope is Godly, don't knock it!


LDS, you were asked in reference to your comment, "Haven’t you heard, if you exercise your faith in true Heavenly messengers and messages, your faith will be rewarded," "No. Where does it say this?" You responded by quoting Matt. 4:17; 10:40-41, without any further comment. Yet, Matt. 4:17 is dealing with Jesus' preaching ministry and repentance, and 10:40-41 is dealing with Jesus' disciples. In neither place is there any comment that is even remotely close to what you state above, nor is there an exhortation to the effect that you assert. Now, once again, just where in the Bible is there an explicit comment stating, "if you exercise your faith in true Heavenly messengers and messages, your faith will be rewarded?"

I don’t understand your objection to my statement. It’s a given isn’t it? Are you suggesting that it is not a blessing or reward to receive and act upon messages from messengers representing Heaven? Please note these examples:
Acts 2:41-42 “41Then they that gladly received his word (The Apostle Peter) were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
Acts 2:46-47 46”And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”

Sounds to me like they exercised their faith upon hearing the word from Peter and then their faith was greatly rewarded with baptism, fellowship, even “saved”!!!

Are you aware of the statement that sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words? Well the above scriptures clearly paints an undeniable picture and clearly illustrates my comment. Why can’t you see the picture???



LDS, then you said, "Heaven will see to it that you will receive a sure knowledge of the truth. It is a promise. When Heaven tells you it is true, you will know to the very marrow of your bones, that it is undeniably true," to which I asked, "Where does it say this?" Your reply was to quote Acts 5:32 and John 16:13-14. Again, in neither quote is there a mention about Heaven saying anything, much less is there this assurance that "to the very marrow of your bones, that is it is undeniably true." In fact, if one really thinks about what John 16 is saying, it would refute the whole idea behind Mormonism and Joseph Smith's supposed visions in the woods, and additional written revelation, and the idea about praying for a "burning in the bosom" to see whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. Therefore, once again, where is the explicit support for your statement?

Deren my “friend”, your response “Where does it say this” saddened me greatly. I was hoping that you would say I KNOW!!! However, considering your comments, opinions and attitude, I should have been better prepared for my disappointment. I should not have garnered such hopeful expectations as I realize now that some things can only known by actual experience. Your comments make it obvious and proof positive that you have yet to be blessed with that incredible occurrence. However, I will continue to hold out hope that you will one day say LDSTrue, “I Know.” Instead of “where is the explicit support for your statement?”

I’m sure there are many glorious and wonderful events mentioned in the Bible that you have “explicit support for” that you have yet to experience. Even if events are written/recorded, it apparently does not include all who will read them. We are all individuals and the Lord deals with us all on a personal worthiness basis. Note: Acts 47. …”And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”


Then you were asked, "The Holy Spirit has revealed to me [Deren] the absolute certainty that Mormonism is false. Why aren't you listening, LDS?" You replied, "I have proven to the Lord that I have "ears to hear".

However, I equate you and others here with Paul of Tarsus. He was very intellectual and positive he was correct in his version of the Gospel. Like Paul, you don’t believe the true church restored is right before your very eyes and yet, IT IS! You seem as positive and convinced of your interpretation and beliefs as Paul was before his conversion, yet, you must agree that he was wrong.

Paul was sent to the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ to receive truth and instruction. He was to receive light (sight) that would dispel the darkness (blindness) that encompassed him by accepting the true and correct gospel. Although Paul was sincere and proficient in his beliefs, he was still dead wrong wasn’t he.You have an opportunity to accept teachings from the Lord’s Apostles as did Paul. Will you hear and accept the teachings or will you follow the poor example of Paul and hold the "raiment."

You have the exact choice before you. Pauls original thoughts about the Church and the Apostles were wrong and you are wrong today in your rejection of the Apostles of His restored church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Paul was converted because he saw the Lord. The Lord says … “blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

This is not an adequate answer at all, for Paul was a converted Pharisee, who lived by the mandates of the law until his conversion. I, on the other hand, have no such pedigree. I am merely a born again Christian, led of God's Spirit as directed through God's word. And because of that direction and guidance have come to conclude that such entities as Mormonism are a complete fraud. So, you're attempted equivocation falls flat, and the question you still need to answer is, "Why are you not listening, if indeed you supposedly have these ears to hear?"
[/QUOTE]

Deren, the comparison is that you, like Paul, have let your intellectual baggage bind you down and blind you to the discernable truth. You sound convinced of a falsehood because of your own efforts at education and subsequent acquired understanding. Like Paul, all your study and education has resulted in your failure to recognize true Apostles sent by Jesus. Paul did not recognize true Apostles in his day and neither do you today. It’s that simple! It is truly a sad commentary but accurate nonetheless.

My hope is that if not today, that one day soon, you too, like Paul will recognize the error of your ways and convert. My sincere hope is that one day you, like Paul, will heed the council of the Lord and follow His Latter Day Apostles back to Him and His Church restored. You may not be as fortunate as Pau,l you may not have Jesus Himself send you to the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ, but then, you have me. See how fortunate you are! :teeth:


Then you were rebutted for making this comment: "Don’t worry, satan does not have the power to duplicate the effect the Holy Ghost can have on you," with a quote from 2 Cor. 11:13-15, which says, "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds." To which you replied with, "What does your comment and scripture quotes have to do with truth being confirmed by Holy Ghost?" The rebuttal clearly shows that Satan is quite capable of duplicating the effects of what Mormons believe is attributable to the Holy Ghost. Because Mormonism is predicated upon subjectivism, not objectivity, when it comes to the Holy Spirit, as its members rely upon physical feelings and sensations that they think is attributable to the Spirit of God. And since they believe all the warm sensations cannot be duplicated by Satan, then they automatically must be coming from the Spirit, when such thinking is erroneous to the nth degree. Satan can, and typical does, immitate what God does all the time, and when he can get human beings to rely upon their fallen natures to determine what is and what is not of God, then he will capitalize on that fault time and again until the human understands that truth is based on God and his objective word, not upon physical, subjective feelings.

Deren, my “friend”, I did not say that I saw the Holy Ghost. Your statements and scripture are mute with regard to my comment. I am talking about an effect from the inside out, not an image or personage that works from the outside in. There is a huge difference between the effects of the Spirit. Satan cannot duplicate the inward effects of the Holy Ghost. Satan is not part of the Godhead and he does not posses the ability to affect one as a member of the Godhead has/will. Again, if you challange me to quote chapter and verse this is will be another example of where a picture is worth a thousand words.


Finally, I said, "Again, the Holy Spirit has made it perfectly clear that Mormonism is a lie, and that you, LDS, are as lost as they come. So, what's preventing you from becoming a born again Christian?" You said: Am I to assume that you mean by that comment that I am immersed and deeply entrenched in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
THANK YOU!!! You could not have given me a more precious or valuable complement!


I was not a compliment, though.

YES IT WAS! I will not let you retract it.

I must split for now as it is time to start my Labor Day celebration.

To be continued :teeth:
LDSTrue!

[Deren]

Deren, hope is Godly, don't knock it!

The question was not about hope. The question was where your faith came from. You said it came from hope, which is abstract and impersonal. Therefore, your faith is the same: abstract and impersonal.


I don’t understand your objection to my statement. It’s a given isn’t it? Are you suggesting that it is not a blessing or reward to receive and act upon messages from messengers representing Heaven?

If it was as you say, then I wouldn't be asking about it. And I don't need you to requote the very thing I've already questioned. I need you to simply answer the questions. Where does it state that, "if you exercise your faith in true Heavenly messengers and messages, your faith will be rewarded?"


Are you aware of the statement that sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words? Well the above scriptures clearly paints an undeniable picture and clearly illustrates my comment. Why can’t you see the picture???

You made an objective claim, so I'm expecting an objective answer to my question; not some subjective assertion that places the onus on the person asking the question. So, where in scripture is there an explicit statement to substantiate your claim?


Deren my “friend”, your response “Where does it say this” saddened me greatly. I was hoping that you would say I KNOW!!! However, considering your comments, opinions and attitude, I should have been better prepared for my disappointment. I should not have garnered such hopeful expectations as I realize now that some things can only known by actual experience. Your comments make it obvious and proof positive that you have yet to be blessed with that incredible occurrence. However, I will continue to hold out hope that you will one day say LDSTrue, “I Know.” Instead of “where is the explicit support for your statement?”

Hey "pal," you're the one making the claim, so don't be trying to place any blame on me. If you don't have something to back up your assertion, then admit it, retract the statement, and don't be making up other things that you'll have to do the same with later on. Besides, it is because I happen to "know" what the Book has to say that I am able to ask the questions that I do, which ought to brighten your day, not cloud it.:wink:


Deren, the comparison is that you, like Paul…quote]

Again, this is not about me, it's about you making statements that obviously you cannot back up.

[quote=LDS]My hope is that if not today, that one day soon, you too, like Paul will recognize the error of your ways and convert.

That will never happen, I can guarantee it. And one of the reasons why is because of what you're doing right now. You make up statements, and when questioned about them, instead of giving an honest, straightfoward reply, you dishonestly try to get around answering the questions through equivocation, drawing false analogies, and diversion. Why would I want to be a part of a church whose members regularly do such things? And then you want to be "friends" of all things. Well, real friends don't do what you're doing to their friends.


Deren, my “friend”, I did not say that I saw the Holy Ghost.

I never said that you did see the Holy Ghost. Therefore, your statement is irrelevant in that regard, while my scriptural reference is quite relevant, given that it rebuts your comment about Satan being able to duplicate or mimic the affects of the Holy Spirit, if people are dumb enough to allow their feelings be their guide of what they think the Holy Spirit should feel like.


Satan cannot duplicate the inward effects of the Holy Ghost.

That is a lie, given that what Mormons believe is the "effect of the Holy Ghost" is verified experientially by the person having the feelings. The Holy Spirit is not a feeling. The Holy Spirit is a person who guides and directs God's children, regardless of the physical sensations they have. Otherwise, you need to give an explicit, clear example from scripture where it says, "The Holy Spirit feels like ________."


Satan is not part of the Godhead and he does not posses the ability to affect one as a member of the Godhead has/will. Again, if you challange me to quote chapter and verse this is will be another example of where a picture is worth a thousand words.

So, in other words, you have absolutely no support for this position either. In fact, your support is as subjective as your other claims, meaning that you've set yourself up as an authority on these things, despite what scripture does objectively say about it. And you're thinking that the Holy Spirit is going to guide that?


YES IT WAS! I will not let you retract it.

No, it was not a compliment. I should know, I made it. Therefore, "friend," don't be twisting my words and intent like you seem to enjoy doing to God's.

[LDSTrue]

Quote: Originally posted by LDSTrue
Deren, hope is Godly, don't knock it!



The question was not about hope. The question was where your faith came from. You said it came from hope, which is abstract and impersonal. Therefore, your faith is the same: abstract and impersonal.

Again! Rom 15;13 “Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, through the power of the Holy Ghost.”

Your statement “hope, which is abstract and impersonal” implies that the God of hope is also “abstract and impersonal”. The hope you receive from your god may be “abstract and impersonal” but I wouldn’t assume everyone receives “abstract and impersonal” hope from the true “God of hope”.

My faith springs from hope, my hope that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ and that He can and will apply His atoning sacrifice to me in the end. I once hoped that He would include me with His sheep, which led me to exercise my faith in Him. I read in the Bible (Matt 25:33-34) that Jesus preferred to save sheep, not goats, so I wanted to be one of His sheep. Upon further study, my hope turned into faith, my faith was rewarded with a sure knowledge of Him by and through the power of the Holy Ghost (See Rom 15:13 above). My faith in Jesus which sprang from hope was not “abstract and impersonal” as you suggest but real, effective, and affective.

1st Peter 1:7 & 9 “7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:” “9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.”

I’m so sorry your hope is as you declare “abstract and impersonal”. A sad state for a person to remain in for sure. My hope turned to faith will result in the salvation of my soul, does that sound “abstract and impersonal”???


Quote: Originally posted by LDS
I don’t understand your objection to my statement. It’s a given isn’t it? Are you suggesting that it is not a blessing or reward to receive and act upon messages from messengers representing Heaven?


If it was as you say, then I wouldn't be asking about it. And I don't need you to requote the very thing I've already questioned. I need you to simply answer the questions. Where does it state that, "if you exercise your faith in true Heavenly messengers and messages, your faith will be rewarded?"


The Apostle Peter delivers this Heavenly message: 1st Peter 1:7-9 “7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.”

Would you say Peter was a heavenly messenger? Would you say “salvation of your souls” is reward enough?

Deren my “friend”, I looked in the Old Testament and Bible Topical Guide for mentions of Peter, James, John, Paul and the term Apostle before the coming of Christ. I don’t know about your scriptures but mine make no mention of them and their Apostleship until the New Testament. The reason I was trying to determine if they were mentioned was because I wanted to know if the disciples following the Apostles back then were able to look them up by name in the Old Testament to confirm that they were following true Apostles.

If they were unable to read their names and titles in their scriptures at the time, how were they to determine that they were following the instructions of true Apostles, or for that matter, that there were even to be Apostles to lead them?

It must be important to you as they were in the same situation as you find yourself today, questioning whether or not Jesus has established (read: restored) His church in your day with a foundation of Apostles as in days of old. Like the first disciples, you wont find the Apostles names in the scriptures, and like them, you will have to determine if the Lord has sent true Apostles as the foundation of His restored Church. Without a sure knowledge at first, they had hope which turned to faith that was later confirmed by the Holy Ghost to their salvation.

Therein is my hope for you as you have this additional directive “7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. (Matt 7:7-8)
It sounds like it will take effort on your part to seek, knock, and find, however, you have a promise from a God that cannot lie who is the God of love. He loves you and wants you to put forth sufficient effort so that you too will come to an understanding of the scriptures and His restored Church with the foundation of Profits and Apostles.

Where else on this Earth can you go today to receive instruction from true Profits and Apostles than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! (The only Church today with Jesus’ foundation of a Profit and Apostles – does that give you a clue?)

If you insist on refusing to ask and will not knock nor seek then you will be left in the state you’re in without ever discerning the promised truth that is available for you to establish today. The disciples of old did and were rewarded/blessed. Remember, don’t be a pre … be a post conversion Paul.



Quote: Originally posted by LDS
Are you aware of the statement that sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words? Well the above scriptures clearly paints an undeniable picture and clearly illustrates my comment. Why can’t you see the picture???


You made an objective claim, so I'm expecting an objective answer to my question; not some subjective assertion that places the onus on the person asking the question. So, where in scripture is there an explicit statement to substantiate your claim?

1st Peter 1:7-9 “7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.”



Quote: Originally posted by LDS
Deren my “friend”, your response “Where does it say this” saddened me greatly. I was hoping that you would say I KNOW!!! However, considering your comments, opinions and attitude, I should have been better prepared for my disappointment. I should not have garnered such hopeful expectations as I realize now that some things can only known by actual experience. Your comments make it obvious and proof positive that you have yet to be blessed with that incredible occurrence. However, I will continue to hold out hope that you will one day say LDSTrue, “I Know.” Instead of “where is the explicit support for your statement?”


Hey "pal," you're the one making the claim, so don't be trying to place any blame on me. If you don't have something to back up your assertion, then admit it, retract the statement, and don't be making up other things that you'll have to do the same with later on. Besides, it is because I happen to "know" what the Book has to say that I am able to ask the questions that I do, which ought to brighten your day, not cloud it.

Deren, just a thought, why do you suppose “the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men”? (Matt 12:31) Could it be that when the Holy Ghost reveals the absolute undeniable truth to you that there is no doubt. What could it fee like to have the Holy Ghost touch you so that “whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come(Matt 12:31). It must feel like a "fire" within and be permanent or else why the eternal damnation?







Quote: Originally posted by LDS
Deren, the comparison is that you, like Paul…quote]

Again, this is not about me, it's about you making statements that obviously you cannot back up.


Your comments are backing up my statement. There are true Prophets and Apostles called and sent forth by Jesus on the Earth today and like Paul, you don’t believe it. YOU prove my point and back up my statement!


[quote=LDS]My hope is that if not today, that one day soon, you too, like Paul will recognize the error of your ways and convert.


That will never happen, I can guarantee it. And one of the reasons why is because of what you're doing right now. You make up statements, and when questioned about them, instead of giving an honest, straightforward reply, you dishonestly try to get around answering the questions through equivocation, drawing false analogies, and diversion. Why would I want to be a part of a church whose members regularly do such things? And then you want to be "friends" of all things. Well, real friends don't do what you're doing to their friends.

Another example of how you are just as Paul was. Paul had a low opinion of the Apostle Stephen too. If it helps, just try and see me as your Ananias … "hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight," …(Acts 9:17).


Quote: Originally posted by LDS
Deren, my “friend”, I did not say that I saw the Holy Ghost.


I never said that you did see the Holy Ghost. Therefore, your statement is irrelevant in that regard, while my scriptural reference is quite relevant, given that it rebuts your comment about Satan being able to duplicate or mimic the affects of the Holy Spirit, if people are dumb enough to allow their feelings be their guide of what they think the Holy Spirit should feel like.

Quote: Originally posted by LDS
Satan cannot duplicate the inward effects of the Holy Ghost.


That is a lie, given that what Mormons believe is the "effect of the Holy Ghost" is verified experientially by the person having the feelings. The Holy Spirit is not a feeling. The Holy Spirit is a person who guides and directs God's children, regardless of the physical sensations they have. Otherwise, you need to give an explicit, clear example from scripture where it says, "The Holy Spirit feels like ________."

O K, I will "The Holy Spirit feels like “FIRE."

Matt 3:11 & Luke 3:16 “he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:”

The fire of the Holy Ghost burns within to the very marrow of the bones or does it burn everything but the marrow of the bones? The marrow of the bones is within and the fire is within so my statement must be correct.

Do you dispute that the fire of the Holy Ghost is within or do you contend that the fire is on the outside?

Luke: 24:32 “And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”
Also:
John 16:13-14 “13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Are you claiming that when the Spirit of truth, (the Holy Ghost) the third member of the Godhead, guides, speaks and shew you truth and things to come that when he does it is imperceptible. Again, if and when it happens to you, you will not have to ask:

"The Holy Spirit feels like ________."

The scriptures make it obvious so do the research yourself. I don’t want to be the one that cheats you out of that miraculous "fire" experience.

Hopefully one day you will say, “I know” and you wont have to rely on me for the answer.

Deren, I hope the above helps, I truly do care and want to be of benefit to you. I have hope!

LDSTrue!

[Deren]

Quote: Originally posted by LDSTrue
Deren, hope is Godly, don't knock it!

Once again, the question was about faith, not hope.


Your statement “hope, which is abstract and impersonal” implies that the God of hope is also “abstract and impersonal”. The hope you receive from your god may be “abstract and impersonal” but I wouldn’t assume everyone receives “abstract and impersonal” hope from the true “God of hope”.

Again, you're twisting my comments because you failed to respond appropriately to begin with, perhaps because you're not paying attention. And you wanted to be my "friend?"


My faith springs from hope, my hope that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ and that He can and will apply His atoning sacrifice to me in the end…My faith in Jesus which sprang from hope was not “abstract and impersonal” as you suggest but real, effective, and affective.

And still a blur, given that you still have not stated where your faith comes from, other than some self-contrived hope that Jesus is this and that.


I’m so sorry your hope is as you declare “abstract and impersonal”. A sad state for a person to remain in for sure. My hope turned to faith will result in the salvation of my soul, does that sound “abstract and impersonal”???

I never said that, and for you to continue to misquote and misrepresent what I'm asking you makes it pretty clear that you are not interested in being a friend, but an enemy.


Deren my “friend”…

Just stop right there. Until you start acting like a friend, don't be calling me your friend anymore. Friends don't do what you're doing.

The rest of your post is being ignored because it fails to answer my question and is a diversion to cover an otherwise poor excuse for faith. The next time your reply, if you do, then address where genuine Christian faith comes from. There is a biblical answer. Maybe eventually you'll stumble upon it, but until then, I'm not interested in reading your ramblings. Furthermore, I'm not interested in your condescending, lying attitude, while on the other hand you want to be "friends." So, once again, if you decide to reply, check your attitude at the door and leave it there. Otherwise, you'll just be wasting your time writing your dissertations, because no one will read them.

[LDSTrue]

Once again, the question was about faith, not hope.



Again, you're twisting my comments because you failed to respond appropriately to begin with, perhaps because you're not paying attention. And you wanted to be my "friend?"



And still a blur, given that you still have not stated where your faith comes from, other than some self-contrived hope that Jesus is this and that.



I never said that, and for you to continue to misquote and misrepresent what I'm asking you makes it pretty clear that you are not interested in being a friend, but an enemy.



Just stop right there. Until you start acting like a friend, don't be calling me your friend anymore. Friends don't do what you're doing.

The rest of your post is being ignored because it fails to answer my question and is a diversion to cover an otherwise poor excuse for faith. The next time your reply, if you do, then address where genuine Christian faith comes from. There is a biblical answer. Maybe eventually you'll stumble upon it, but until then, I'm not interested in reading your ramblings. Furthermore, I'm not interested in your condescending, lying attitude, while on the other hand you want to be "friends." So, once again, if you decide to reply, check your attitude at the door and leave it there. Otherwise, you'll just be wasting your time writing your dissertations, because no one will read them.


Deren:

Won’t you please help?

You say my answers are insufficient and yet your statement seems to indicate that you have been holding back the correct answer the entire time.


Deren, you say: The next time your reply, if you do, then address where genuine Christian faith comes from. There is a biblical answer. Maybe eventually you'll stumble upon it,

The Christian thing to do would be to help me discover the correct answer you are looking for. You are the one all upset because you believe that I have yet to answer your questions. How about a little help!

There are hundreds of scriptures that mention "Faith", which one do you expect me to find?

I have mentioned that I was reading the Bible and heard about His sheep and wanted to become one.
Rom. 10: 17
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

I mentioned that I had hope.
Heb. 11: 1
"1 NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Then I mentioned my faith is in Jesus Christ.
Gal. 3: 26
"26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
Also:
Heb. 12: 2
"2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;" ...

I have already mentioned that the Holy Ghost confirmed my faith in Jesus.
1 Cor. 12: 9
"9 To another faith by the same Spirit;" ...

Because of my scripture study and the promises therein, I no longer need faith concerning the existence of Jesus as I know He is alive and well. Since my acceptance of the Gospel I have;
Col. 1: 23
"23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard," ...

What better explanation can I give?

I am sorry you have misinterpreted my answers. I have not been purposely trying to get you upset. I have been attempting to respond in a way that would be most communicative and effective. It is really important to me that I help you in some way understand the truth.

LDSTrue!

[Deren]

I am sorry you have misinterpreted my answers.

I have not misinterpreted anything.


I have not been purposely trying to get you upset.

Being a condescending smartalek, on purpose though, is hardly a way to establish good relations with anyone.:wink:


I have been attempting to respond in a way that would be most communicative and effective.

Have you ever thought about listening as the first step in being able to communicate effectively?


It is really important to me that I help you in some way understand the truth.

One has to know the truth before they can help someone else understand it. And you, sir, wouldn't know the truth if it came up and slapped you squarely in the face.

[LDSTrue]

Quote: Originally posted by LDSTrue
I am sorry you have misinterpreted my answers.



I have not misinterpreted anything.

If you truly believe that I am a condescending smartalek then you have certainly misinterpreted the intent of my statements. I will acquiesce to the judgement of the independent readers. Hopefully, the readers have discerned my intent and concern for your spiritual welfare in my remarks.

Quote: Originally posted by LDS
I have not been purposely trying to get you upset.



Being a condescending smartalek, on purpose though, is hardly a way to establish good relations with anyone.

At least I tried to be civil, considerate and respectful of your faith.

Consider your remarks and attempts at “good relations”.

# 32 – …“and that you, LDS, are as lost as they come. So, what's preventing you from becoming a born again Christian?”

#32 – “Mormonism is a lie” …

#45 - … “you are neither born again, nor even know what that means. And the fire you're going to be experiencing one day, if you remain in your degenerate state, is not going to be coming from the Holy Spirit. It's going to be coming from a trip to hell.”

#47 – “Therefore, your faith is the same: abstract and impersonal. “

#47 – “You make up statements” …

#47 - … “you dishonestly try to get around answering the questions through equivocation, drawing false analogies, and diversion. “

#47 – “That is a lie’ …


My responses could have been much different considering your remarks. It appears that by comparison, I was the one trying to establish "good relations" taking into account the malice in your remarks.

Quote: Originally posted by LDS
I have been attempting to respond in a way that would be most communicative and effective.



Have you ever thought about listening as the first step in being able to communicate effectively?


You are the one not listening and ignoring my plea for help. I asked you to furnish what could be one of the most important scriptures in the Bible and my request to date has gone totally ignored. Why are you refusing to share it?

Quote: Originally posted by LDS
It is really important to me that I help you in some way understand the truth.



One has to know the truth before they can help someone else understand it. And you, sir, wouldn't know the truth if it came up and slapped you squarely in the face.

Deren, there are several characters in the Bible that I could have chosen to associate you with. I aimed high and chose the Apostle Paul because your remarks and actions are very similar when contrasted with his. You too are on the proverbial road to Damascus concerning the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Like you, Paul was educated and intelligent and was charging off to defend the truth as he knew it to be at the time. What Paul knew to be true at the time changed with the appearance of the Savior, Jesus Christ, the church and His Apostles. Paul did not recognize the Savior, His Apostles nor the relevant signs of the times.

What you think to be true has changed with the fulfillment of prophecy concerning the restoration of all things. The advent of the latter day restoration mentioned in the Bible has begun to occur. You, like Paul, are oblivious to the fact that prophecy is being fulfilled in our day. There are signs of the times that you are either ignoring or are neglecting to notice.

Do you dispute that we are in the latter days, the last “dispensation”?

These scripture speak of events for our time that have begun.

Eph 1:10 “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in Heaven, and which are on the earth; even in him:”

Acts 3:21 “Whom the Heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."

Ezk 37:”16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: 17And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.”

Dan. 2:45 "Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure."

There are at least four critical events mentioned in the scriptures above that are presently in the process of fulfillment. This is a glorious time to be alive! My comments were simply an attempt to bring prophecy and their fulfillment in our day to your attention in a way that you will notice and take heed.

There are worse comparisons in the Bible, however, like Paul, you could be a tremendous defender of the true faith if you will take the steps necessary to recognize the fulfillment of prophecy and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints restored.

I’ll close with a question and a comment:

Without dates, places and names mentioned in the scriptures, how will you determine that the events prophesied to come to pass in our day are in fact happening?

The scriptures containing prophecies pertaining to the last dispensation are void of exact dates, places, and names. The Holy Ghost knows so I strongly advise you to prepare, knock, seek, listen and find before it is too late. Some were prepared for Hurricane Katrina while others were caught unaware.

LDSTrue!

[Krusader]

Quote: Originally posted by LDSTrue
I am sorry you have misinterpreted my answers.



If you truly believe that I am a condescending smartalek then you have certainly misinterpreted the intent of my statements. I will acquiesce to the judgement of the independent readers. Hopefully, the readers have discerned my intent and concern for your spiritual welfare in my remarks.

Quote: Originally posted by LDS
I have not been purposely trying to get you upset.




At least I tried to be civil, considerate and respectful of your faith.

Consider your remarks and attempts at “good relations”.

# 32 – …“and that you, LDS, are as lost as they come. So, what's preventing you from becoming a born again Christian?”

#32 – “Mormonism is a lie” …

#45 - … “you are neither born again, nor even know what that means. And the fire you're going to be experiencing one day, if you remain in your degenerate state, is not going to be coming from the Holy Spirit. It's going to be coming from a trip to hell.”

#47 – “Therefore, your faith is the same: abstract and impersonal. “

#47 – “You make up statements” …

#47 - … “you dishonestly try to get around answering the questions through equivocation, drawing false analogies, and diversion. “

#47 – “That is a lie’ …


My responses could have been much different considering your remarks. It appears that by comparison, I was the one trying to establish "good relations" taking into account the malice in your remarks.

Quote: Originally posted by LDS
I have been attempting to respond in a way that would be most communicative and effective.




You are the one not listening and ignoring my plea for help. I asked you to furnish what could be one of the most important scriptures in the Bible and my request to date has gone totally ignored. Why are you refusing to share it?

Quote: Originally posted by LDS
It is really important to me that I help you in some way understand the truth.




Deren, there are several characters in the Bible that I could have chosen to associate you with. I aimed high and chose the Apostle Paul because your remarks and actions are very similar when contrasted with his. You too are on the proverbial road to Damascus concerning the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Like you, Paul was educated and intelligent and was charging off to defend the truth as he knew it to be at the time. What Paul knew to be true at the time changed with the appearance of the Savior, Jesus Christ, the church and His Apostles. Paul did not recognize the Savior, His Apostles nor the relevant signs of the times.

What you think to be true has changed with the fulfillment of prophecy concerning the restoration of all things. The advent of the latter day restoration mentioned in the Bible has begun to occur. You, like Paul, are oblivious to the fact that prophecy is being fulfilled in our day. There are signs of the times that you are either ignoring or are neglecting to notice.

Do you dispute that we are in the latter days, the last “dispensation”?

These scripture speak of events for our time that have begun.

Eph 1:10 “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in Heaven, and which are on the earth; even in him:”

Acts 3:21 “Whom the Heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."

Ezk 37:”16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: 17And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.”

Dan. 2:45 "Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure."

There are at least four critical events mentioned in the scriptures above that are presently in the process of fulfillment. This is a glorious time to be alive! My comments were simply an attempt to bring prophecy and their fulfillment in our day to your attention in a way that you will notice and take heed.

There are worse comparisons in the Bible, however, like Paul, you could be a tremendous defender of the true faith if you will take the steps necessary to recognize the fulfillment of prophecy and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints restored.

I’ll close with a question and a comment:

Without dates, places and names mentioned in the scriptures, how will you determine that the events prophesied to come to pass in our day are in fact happening?

The scriptures containing prophecies pertaining to the last dispensation are void of exact dates, places, and names. The Holy Ghost knows so I strongly advise you to prepare, knock, seek, listen and find before it is too late. Some were prepared for Hurricane Katrina while others were caught unaware.

LDSTrue!

LDS: Your attempt to identify Mormonism's revelations of "restoration" with the Damascus Road experience of the Apostle Paul is totally bogus. What did Paul do - he went to the Apostles of Christ and submitted his teaching to them - lest he had preached in vain. Did Joseph Smith do that? No, Smith went about establishing his own Church, when it was clear that the Christians of his day recognized him as a false prophet. He did not submit to Biblical truth, but produced his own spurious "revelations," and ended up changing every cardinal doctrine of Christianity: The Godhead, Deity of Christ, Atonement, etc. Smith was the antithesis of the Apostle Paul.

Deren is attempting to share with you the truth of the Bible and compare it with Mormonism, which is a non-Christian religious system. You have a different God(s), a different Jesus (the Mormon Jesus apparently killed millions of people in the New World when he was crucified in Jerusalem - at least 16 cities were destroyed or sunk into the ocean), and a different spirit - who apparently gives Mormons the warm fuzzy "testimony" that Mormonism is true. You change the definition of Christian doctrines to fit into your doctrinal system, and then expect us to accept you as Christians.

Well, what if Deren and a friend bought some ten-speed bikes, put on Mormon missionary clothes with little black badges identifying themselves as "elders" and went door to door in Utah proclaiming that they were Mormons who believed in Joseph Smith and his revelations - but they taught that Smith was actually born in Peru, the son of peasants, and was visited by a Spanish-speaking angel who gave him a bunch of hidden silver plates written by Montezuma who was the real Apostle to the Peruvians, who are actually descended from the tribe of Dan which came to the New World on gliders four thousand years ago. These plates teach that Joseph Smith, the Peruvian, actually taught the law of "eternal regression." Yes, humans were once all gods - regressed to humans, and if they are faithful to Montezuma's teachings, they can one day be vegetables.

Would you call Deren and his friend Mormons? What if Deren got thousands of Utah Mormons to change their minds and join his Montezuma Mormon cult? Wouldn't you try to convince these people that they were believing in a spurious Peruvian "Smith?" Is Deren, a Christian, doing anything different than you would do were you confronted with these spurious Montezuma Mormons?

Telling you the truth is the most loving thing Deren can do!


(I give credit to Mr. Walker of Watchman.org for the above ideas I've modified into the Montezuma Mormons analogy).

[PaulT]

LDSTrue,



I trust you won’t take this as intruding, but I couldn’t help commenting on your statement below.






Deren, there are several characters in the Bible that I could have chosen to associate you with. I aimed high and chose the Apostle Paul because your remarks and actions are very similar when contrasted with his. You too are on the proverbial road to Damascus concerning the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.



Like you, Paul was educated and intelligent and was charging off to defend the truth as he knew it to be at the time. What Paul knew to be true at the time changed with the appearance of the Savior, Jesus Christ, the church and His Apostles. Paul did not recognize the Savior, His Apostles nor the relevant signs of the times.



What you think to be true has changed with the fulfillment of prophecy concerning the restoration of all things. The advent of the latter day restoration mentioned in the Bible has begun to occur. You, like Paul, are oblivious to the fact that prophecy is being fulfilled in our day. There are signs of the times that you are either ignoring or are neglecting to notice.



LDSTrue!



Paul post conversion had a fundamental disagreement with the Jews over who Christ was, not unlike the disagreement Christians have with Mormons. The orthodox Jews denied Christ was God. When Paul confronted the Athenians in Acts chapter 17, who btw, held a similar view of the creators powers as that of the Mormons he told them they were wrong. The fundamental difference between Christians like Deren and Mormons begins with the basic concepts of God, who God is, what God has done, who man is and what is mans responsibility to God. What Paul taught about who God is, what God has done, who man is and mans responsibility to his Creator has not changed, and is fundamentally different from what I been told, read and understand the Mormon view of these very basic concepts to be. Irrespective of what you believe to be the signs of the times mean, if your faith is based on fundamentally different concepts than what the Apostle Paul taught then you are following a different god or gods, than the one Saul met on the road to Damascus and changed the orthodox Jew into the Apostle Paul.



Paul

[LDSTrue]

Paul, I appreciate you expressing your opinions; however, may I make a few observations regarding you statements.


Paul post conversion had a fundamental disagreement with the Jews over who Christ was, not unlike the disagreement Christians have with Mormons.

Paul, I have had some “Christians” tell me that the significant difference between the Mormon Jesus and the “Christian” Jesus is that the Mormons believe Jesus really has a Father in Heaven. The “Mormons” teach that the Father and Son are separate and independent distinct person as distinct as you or I. I have been told that “Christians” believe that if we have a Father in Heaven it is Jesus and not the father of Jesus. Some say that when Jesus came to Earth, He was the Father incarnate or that Jesus was the Father manifested in human form, of one Being with the Father. What does “one Being with the Father” mean?

Do “Christians” expect to see both (separate and distinct persons) the Father and the Son in Heaven or just one God who is both the Father and the Son combined into one being. In the “Christian” view, will there be anyone one on the right hand of God? On the other hand, for that matter, do “Christians” believe that God has hands or that there is a right or left to God?

May I presume that you are a “Christian” and can shed some light on the differences? One or two, separate and distinct, all in one, Father and Son, Father as Son, FatherSon??? Have I captured the jest of the disagreement?

Please do not think I am confused, I know that Jesus has a Father, had a Father in Heaven while He was upon the Earth and will eternally have a Father. Is my knowledge grounds for the “disagreement”?”

From what I understand, the “Mormon view is consistent with scripture considering:

2 John 1:9 … “He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”

The “Mormon view seems to be consistent with Jesus’ own words. I quote; John 15:24 “If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.”


The orthodox Jews denied Christ was God.


It is my impression and I believe it is recorded that the orthodox Jews were upset because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Is it recorded in the New Testament where Jesus is claiming to be "God"?

May I refer you to:
Matt. 26:63 - 66 “63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 … “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of Heaven.” 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.”


When Paul confronted the Athenians in Acts chapter 17, who btw, held a similar view of the creators powers as that of the Mormons, he told them they were wrong.

Paul, since I have been a member I have yet to worship idols nor can it be said of any Mormon city that “… the city wholly given to idolatry.” (Acts 17:16) Nor are there alters “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD” within any of our cities.

As a result of my membership, unlike the Athenians, I know our God and know that He sent His Son to be our; Lord, Advocate, Savior, Messiah, Redeemer, Creator, Mediator, Judge etc. just to name a few. I know and believe like the Apostle Paul “He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.” I unconditionally agree with the Apostle Paul that “in him we live, and move, and have our being;” I agree with Paul the Apostle and have been taught and know that “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” (Acts 17:29)


The fundamental difference between Christians like Deren and Mormons begins with the basic concepts of God, who God is, what God has done, who man is and what is mans responsibility to God.

Why do you make mention of “God” instead of our Heavenly Father or Jesus? Are you speaking of them both when you say "God" or one in particular? Do you mean the Godhead when you say "God"?


What Paul taught about who God is, what God has done, who man is and mans responsibility to his Creator has not changed, and is fundamentally different from what I been told, read and understand the Mormon view of these very basic concepts to be.

I hope my scripture quotes and comments above will provide you with the necessary ammunition to put to rest the false impressions you have received about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


Irrespective of what you believe to be the signs of the times mean,…

The reason I know the truth regarding the signs of the times and their meaning is a direct result of the confirmation of and by the Holy Ghost as promised.


… if your faith is based on fundamentally different concepts than what the Apostle Paul taught then you are following a different god or gods, than the one Saul met on the road to Damascus and changed the orthodox Jew into the Apostle Paul.

Like the Apostle Paul, I hope I have made it clear in my remarks above that my faith is based upon my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The same and exact person Saul met on the road to Damascus and the Apostle Paul taught and died in the service of and not a "fundamentally different concept".

May I leave you with:

“I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.” (2 Nephi 33:6)

LDSTrue!

[PaulT]

LDSTrue:



Paul, I appreciate you expressing your opinions; however, may I make a few observations regarding you statements.



Thank you, I appreciate you did not perceive I was butting into the conversation.




Quote: Paul

Paul post conversion had a fundamental disagreement with the Jews over who Christ was, not unlike the disagreement Christians have with Mormons.



LDSTrue:

Paul, I have had some “Christians” tell me that the significant difference between the Mormon Jesus and the “Christian” Jesus is that the Mormons believe Jesus really has a Father in Heaven. The “Mormons” teach that the Father and Son are separate and independent distinct person as distinct as you or I. I have been told that “Christians” believe that if we have a Father in Heaven it is Jesus and not the father of Jesus. Some say that when Jesus came to Earth, He was the Father incarnate or that Jesus was the Father manifested in human form, of one Being with the Father. What does “one Being with the Father” mean?



Do “Christians” expect to see both (separate and distinct persons) the Father and the Son in Heaven or just one God who is both the Father and the Son combined into one being. In the “Christian” view, will there be anyone one on the right hand of God? On the other hand, for that matter, do “Christians” believe that God has hands or that there is a right or left to God?



May I presume that you are a “Christian” and can shed some light on the differences? One or two, separate and distinct, all in one, Father and Son, Father as Son, FatherSon??? Have I captured the jest of the disagreement?



No, I don’t believe you have correctly caught the “jest” of the disagreement. Christians believe in ONE GOD, comprised of 3 distinct and separate personalities, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The Being of God has always been comprised of 3 distinct personalities, always existing, IOW has no beginning or end, Creator of all, and in-fact while apart of creation transcends beyond creation. From what I have been told, the Mormon view of Elohim is that he co-existed with matter and “intelligences” from which he formed the other gods, including Jesus. The Christ the Christian worships is not a created individual but has always existed because He is God, Creator of all. I’m not sure what Christians expect to see in heaven but because God the Father is spirit, John 4:24, I don’t anticipate seeing Him with hands, legs or wings for that matter. However, I do anticipate seeing Christ was has the authority of God’s right hand man, if you know what I mean.








LDSTrue:

Please do not think I am confused, I know that Jesus has a Father, had a Father in Heaven while He was upon the Earth and will eternally have a Father. Is my knowledge grounds for the “disagreement”?”



From what I understand, the “Mormon view is consistent with scripture considering:



2 John 1:9 … “He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”



The “Mormon view seems to be consistent with Jesus’ own words. I quote; John 15:24 “If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.”



I don’t believe you are confused, just mislead by the false doctrine of the Mormons, which is why Deren is concerned for your soul. The doctrine of Christ says that He is God, the Alpha and Omega the Creator of all, not a created being. The Mormon view that says Christ is one of many god’s, sourced from the same pool of “intelligences” that Elohim made man from is a false doctrine and is contrary the Biblical record and Christian teachings. If you believe Christ is a created being comprised of the same “intelligences” man is then you do not abide in the doctrine of Christ. Du 6:4 is clear, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord”, either God is one as in the Christian view or the Mormon view of Du 6:4 that Christ is one of many gods is wrong. Isaiah 45:21 says, “…who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? And there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior, there is none beside me”, clearly there is one God, and none beside, something that directly contradicts the Mormon view of god.




Quote: Paul

The orthodox Jews denied Christ was God.





LDSTrue:

It is my impression and I believe it is recorded that the orthodox Jews were upset because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Is it recorded in the New Testament where Jesus is claiming to be "God"?



When Christ claimed to be the Son of God, to the Jew that meant He was God, which is why they had a law against such a claim, John 19:7. The Jews believed God was the I AM, Ex 3:13,14, when the Jews confronted Christ and asked Him who He was He said the same thing God told Moses, I AM, John 8:58.






LDSTrue:

May I refer you to:

Matt. 26:63 - 66 “63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 … “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of Heaven.” 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.”



Right, the Jews understood that Christ’s claim was that He had the authority of God, He was God’s Son, He was God, which caused them to accuse Him of Blaspheme. Christ was not a created being like they were, but God, the Great I AM. Christ was not just another man who had been picked by God to be a prophet and represent Him to the people. Christ was God in every sense of the word which was an abhorrent idea to the Jews, which is why they killed Him.




Quote: Paul

When Paul confronted the Athenians in Acts chapter 17, who btw, held a similar view of the creators powers as that of the Mormons, he told them they were wrong.





LDSTrue:

Paul, since I have been a member I have yet to worship idols nor can it be said of any Mormon city that “… the city wholly given to idolatry.” (Acts 17:16) Nor are there alters “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD” within any of our cities.



As a result of my membership, unlike the Athenians, I know our God and know that He sent His Son to be our; Lord, Advocate, Savior, Messiah, Redeemer, Creator, Mediator, Judge etc. just to name a few. I know and believe like the Apostle Paul “He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.” I unconditionally agree with the Apostle Paul that “in him we live, and move, and have our being;” I agree with Paul the Apostle and have been taught and know that “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” (Acts 17:29)



Idol’s take many forms other than graven images. However, the point is that your view of a limited god, the Mormon god, one who co-existed with matter and intelligences from which Elohim assembled creation is fundamentally different that what Paul told the Athenians God had done. Plato, one of the great Greek thinkers postured a similar view of creation that the Mormons have, god shaped creation out of pre-existing matter and man out of pre-existing “intelligences”. Paul directly confronted this when he told them God made the Kosmos and all the things therein, which would include pre-existing matter and intelligences. The point is the god you claim to know is not the same God Paul taught of, one who created everything and was reliant on none.






Quote: Paul

The fundamental difference between Christians like Deren and Mormons begins with the basic concepts of God, who God is, what God has done, who man is and what is mans responsibility to God.





LDSTrue:

Why do you make mention of “God” instead of our Heavenly Father or Jesus? Are you speaking of them both when you say "God" or one in particular? Do you mean the Godhead when you say "God"?



Because this is the basic flaw in your view, the Mormon view of God denies who God is, what God has wrought, who man is and what man’s responsibility to God is. The Mormon concept that “as man is god once was and as god is man may become” is the encapsulation of the diabolical teachings of the Mormon view which has mislead many a trusting soul. God is the Creator, who stands above creation yet transcends creation. Man is a created being who owes everything to God. If you believe Christ was just another created being, comprised of the same “intelligences” as you, you deny who He is, do not abide in the doctrine of Christ, and like the Pharisees who prophesied in His name because the LDS deny who He is, will likewise be caste out because He never knew you, Matt 7:22,23.










Quote: Paul

What Paul taught about who God is, what God has done, who man is and mans responsibility to his Creator has not changed, and is fundamentally different from what I been told, read and understand the Mormon view of these very basic concepts to be.





LDSTrue:

I hope my scripture quotes and comments above will provide you with the necessary ammunition to put to rest the false impressions you have received about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.



I’m sorry, but until you explain that you do not believe Christ was a created being, comprised of the same “intelligences” man is then what you have mentioned above does little to suggest you are not deceived by the same false teachings other Mormons have explained they believe. There is one God, Creator of all. Christ is God and unless you recognize Him as such you like the Pharisees in Matt 7, really don’t know Him, all the while claiming His name.




Quote: Paul

Irrespective of what you believe to be the signs of the times mean,…





LDSTrue:

The reason I know the truth regarding the signs of the times and their meaning is a direct result of the confirmation of and by the Holy Ghost as promised.



Well, assuming you don’t deny the false Mormon teaching that Christ is a created being, then we can assume you really don’t know the Holy Ghost. While you might use the terminology because you don’t know the person behind the terminology, what makes you think you aren’t like the Pharisees in Matt 7:22,23 who thought they knew God, but in the end were denied by Him?







LDSTrue:
Like the Apostle Paul, I hope I have made it clear in my remarks above that my faith is based upon my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The same and exact person Saul met on the road to Damascus and the Apostle Paul taught and died in the service of and not a "fundamentally different concept".



Saul met God, who transformed him into Paul. If your Lord is the same Lord preached by Joseph Smith, a created being, made up from the same pool of intelligences that man was, if you buy into the false doctrine that “as man is, god once was, as god is man may become” then you have been deceived by wolves in sheeps clothing, the same type Christ warned about in Matt 7:15 and the same type Paul warned of in Acts 20:29.






LDSTrue:

May I leave you with:



“I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.” (2 Nephi 33:6)



Thanks, but no thanks, I prefer to read the Word of God, which says, “…If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” Rev 22:18. I do believe Mr. Smith added a few volumes to the Word of God, so I will just stand on the Book God has given man.



Paul

[Krusader]

Paul: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, for we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we outght not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device," Acts 17:28-29.

The above vss. are constantly used by Mormons to prove that they are the "race" (literal translation of the word translated offspring) of God - thinking that this supports their evolving gods doctrine.

Bloodnut has used these vss, as well as LDS True, and I think it's needful to make some comment regarding Paul's words.

Paul, here is citing pagan poets as he speaks to pagans at the Altar to the Unknown God. Epimenedes, a Cretan poet, writing from the 6th century BC refers to Minos of Crete attacking Zeus and making the statement "in Him we live and move and exist." In the same poem he speaks the line which Paul quotes in Titus 1:12. Callimachus (3rd century BC) utilized the same line in his hymn to Zeus. "For we also are His offspring," is a line also found in more than one pagan poet's writings: Aratus, a Cilician, in the 5th line of his poetic work on astronomy, entitled Phaenomena - 315 BC; and Cliontes in his hymn to Zeus. In both of these quotes the reference is made in a context which speaks of Zeus.

Why is Paul using quotes from pagan poets? Paul believed that false religions did have the light of "natural revelation," (see Romans 1), even though it was misapplied. He is not saying that these pagans worship and know the true God, for he states at the beginning of his sermon that they DO NOT know Him. These poets were talking about Zeus, and Paul is only quoting them as illustrative: the point being that God is a person and we are His "offspring" (not literally gods), so idolatry or worship of statues of stone and wood - worship of impersonal objects - is even rejected by their own pagan poets who speak of Zeus. He is making an argument for a personal god!

Paul is not making up some new doctrine regarding men being gods or evolving into gods. He is simply using these pagan poets' quotes as a point of reference, a way to reach out to these pagans (he became all things to all people, that he might save some). He was attempting to relate to them using something they were familiar with.

Mormons really need to research the historical background of the Bible instead of picking vss. out of context to attempt to prove Smith's weird doctrines!

[Nosnomis]

Paul: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, for we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we outght not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device," Acts 17:28-29.

The above vss. are constantly used by Mormons to prove that they are the "race" (literal translation of the word translated offspring) of God - thinking that this supports their evolving gods doctrine.

Bloodnut has used these vss, as well as LDS True, and I think it's needful to make some comment regarding Paul's words.

Paul, here is citing pagan poets as he speaks to pagans at the Altar to the Unknown God. Epimenedes, a Cretan poet, writing from the 6th century BC refers to Minos of Crete attacking Zeus and making the statement "in Him we live and move and exist." In the same poem he speaks the line which Paul quotes in Titus 1:12. Callimachus (3rd century BC) utilized the same line in his hymn to Zeus. "For we also are His offspring," is a line also found in more than one pagan poet's writings: Aratus, a Cilician, in the 5th line of his poetic work on astronomy, entitled Phaenomena - 315 BC; and Cliontes in his hymn to Zeus. In both of these quotes the reference is made in a context which speaks of Zeus.

Why is Paul using quotes from pagan poets? Paul believed that false religions did have the light of "natural revelation," (see Romans 1), even though it was misapplied. He is not saying that these pagans worship and know the true God, for he states at the beginning of his sermon that they DO NOT know Him. These poets were talking about Zeus, and Paul is only quoting them as illustrative: the point being that God is a person and we are His "offspring" (not literally gods), so idolatry or worship of statues of stone and wood - worship of impersonal objects - is even rejected by their own pagan poets who speak of Zeus. He is making an argument for a personal god!

Paul is not making up some new doctrine regarding men being gods or evolving into gods. He is simply using these pagan poets' quotes as a point of reference, a way to reach out to these pagans (he became all things to all people, that he might save some). He was attempting to relate to them using something they were familiar with.

Mormons really need to research the historical background of the Bible instead of picking vss. out of context to attempt to prove Smith's weird doctrines!

You then admit that we are his offspring? And that God is a person? Or at least that Paul was teaching as such? If God is a person (as you and I both believe,) and not an idol, and we are his offspring (as was mentioned,) and we were created in God's own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26,) just as Adam begat Seth in his own likeness, after his image, then does that not require that God has a human body? Paul was using the pagan poets as an example to teach that we are children of God, as it is also mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:1, Psalms 82:6, Malachi 2:10, Matthew 5:48, 6:9, And Ephesians 4:6. In each of these scriptures, either we are mentioned as children of God, or God is mentioned as our Father.

As for our potential to become gods, In Genesis, it is mentioned that we became as God, knowing good from evil. I would say that is one step towards divinity, as we are now closer to God than before we knew good from evil. Leviticus 19, we are told to become holy, as God is holy. David, in addition to calling us children of God in Ps 82, mentions that we are gods. The Church does not say that we have attained godhood already, only that we eventually will attain it, so in that aspect we are not quite so radical as some people believe us to be. In Matthew, we are told to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect. What would happen when we attain that perfection? We become the joint-heirs with Christ, as mentioned in Romans 8:17. You and I both believe that Christ is a God, and if we become joint-heirs with him, does that not mean we become gods too? Another mention of being an heir to god in found in Galations 4:7, where we are told we are heirs to God through Christ.

[Krusader]

You then admit that we are his offspring? And that God is a person? Or at least that Paul was teaching as such? If God is a person (as you and I both believe,) and not an idol, and we are his offspring (as was mentioned,) and we were created in God's own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26,) just as Adam begat Seth in his own likeness, after his image, then does that not require that God has a human body? Paul was using the pagan poets as an example to teach that we are children of God, as it is also mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:1, Psalms 82:6, Malachi 2:10, Matthew 5:48, 6:9, And Ephesians 4:6. In each of these scriptures, either we are mentioned as children of God, or God is mentioned as our Father.

As for our potential to become gods, In Genesis, it is mentioned that we became as God, knowing good from evil. I would say that is one step towards divinity, as we are now closer to God than before we knew good from evil. Leviticus 19, we are told to become holy, as God is holy. David, in addition to calling us children of God in Ps 82, mentions that we are gods. The Church does not say that we have attained godhood already, only that we eventually will attain it, so in that aspect we are not quite so radical as some people believe us to be. In Matthew, we are told to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect. What would happen when we attain that perfection? We become the joint-heirs with Christ, as mentioned in Romans 8:17. You and I both believe that Christ is a God, and if we become joint-heirs with him, does that not mean we become gods too? Another mention of being an heir to god in found in Galations 4:7, where we are told we are heirs to God through Christ.

Jeth, did you miss the whole point of what I posted? I was saying that Paul, quoting a pagan poet, was using this as a reference point for connecting with the pagans with whom he was speaking. He was not saying that we are the offspring of a male god and female goddess who have celestial sex and procreate spirit babies who inhabit physical bodies - Paul, a Jewish monotheist, would have gotten physically sick even thinking of that!!!!!!

Just how does the Bible say that you become a child of God, Jeth. Read the first chapter of John, and you will find out.

By the way, don't mix up vss. which are narratives with those dealing with doctrine. For instance, John 1:1 is a doctrinal vs. describing the Diety of the Logos. However, when Nehemiah is quoted as saying, "I likewise, and my brethren and my servants, might exact of them money and corn," does not mean that the church has the right to demand money and corn from its members (Neh. 5:10).

Also, Jeth, when Adam and Eve fell it was not a step closer to divinity, but a step toward hell and the worship of Satan. Adam sinned, Jeth - and he didn't fall upward!

Mormons are always looking to fit their doctrine into the Bible instead of taking their doctrine from the Bible.

[LDSTrue]

PaulT:

Thank you for your response to my post. You obviously put forth a lot of thought and effort for my benefit and I appreciate it.

Paul, you said:
No, I don’t believe you have correctly caught the “jest” of the disagreement. Christians believe in ONE GOD, comprised of 3 distinct and separate personalities, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The Being of God has always been comprised of 3 distinct personalities,


Your answer to my first question regarding the “Christian” God wherein you state “Christians believe in ONE GOD, comprised of 3 distinct and separate personalities” and “The being of God has always been comprised of 3 distinct personalities” is disturbing to me when contrasted with New Testament scripture.

First I went to my Bible (KJV), looked up “personalities”, and found no mention of the term. I did however find Father, Son, Holy Ghost and personage but no mention of “personalities”.

You are applying a term to describe members of the Godhead that is neither scriptural nor topical in the KJV of the Bible. Why??? Are the terms Father, Son and Holy Ghost as applied in the Bible insufficient or incomplete?

Your representation that “Christians” believe in One God comprised of 3 distinct and separate personalities is a doctrine I will have to take your word on. You say Christians should believe that the Godhead is made up of 3 “personalities” of One God instead of three separate and distinct individual persons, however, I don’t find your “personalities” concept mentioned in the KJV of the Bible as noted above.

I expect that if your doctrine is true then it would sound appropriate and fit when applied to scripture. I hope you will agree that if what you say about God and the Godhead is true then it must ring true when applied or compared with scripture we know to be true.

I’ll begin with a common statement: God sent His only begotten “personality” to Earth to be the Savior and Redeemer of the World. Does that sound right to you?

Here are some actual scripture examples:
Matt. 22:42 … What think ye of Christ? Whose “personality” is he?

Acts 2:32 This “personality” hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Acts 3:13 “… the God of our fathers, hath glorified his “personality” Jesus;

Acts 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the “personality” of God.

Acts 2:36 Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same “personality” whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Matt: 4:3 If thou be the “personality” of God, command that these stones be made bread.

Matt 4:6 If thou be the “personality” of God cast thyself down:

Matt. 3:17 And lo a voice from Heaven, saying, This is my beloved “personality”, in whom I am well pleased.

Paul, you have made it obvious that you have bought into the “Christian” doctrine that God is three separate and distinct “personalities” but your doctrine does not look, sound, fit, or correspond well with scriptures we know to be true.

The “Mormon” doctrine that teaches that the Godhead is comprised of 3 separate and distinct individual persons could not be better demonstrated than with the remarks of Jesus himself.

I quote John 20:17 “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them. I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God.” Paul, I’m sure you noticed the fact that in this scripture you have the resurrected Jesus saying He has a Father and God in Heaven while He is standing on terra firma.

When and how does a resurrected “personality” claim to have a Father and God? If Jesus, The Son of God, tells you face to face that He has a Father and God, would it not be intelligent to take him at His word and BELIEVE HIM!!!

Who knows better than Jesus that He is really an individual person with a Father and God? You have a definite choice; it is either the “3 distinct and separate personalities” or the incorruptible true words of Jesus out of Jesus’ own mouth. I cannot imagine the amount of confusion and distortion over such a clear issue.

When you come face to face with Jesus at the judgement bar, are you still going to insist that you are face to face with one of the “personalities” of God and not the literal Son of God? If Jesus says He has a God and Father in Heaven while He is standing in front of you like he did with Mary then I would advise that you go to your grave believing Him and nothing contrary to His true pronouncement.

Heb. 1:2-3 states: “2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” (how can a “personality” inherit or make anything?)

“3 Who being the brightness of his glory; and the express image of his person,…” (how can a “personality” be an express image of anything? If you will take the time and look up “express image” as used in this context you will discover that it would be impossible to conclude that the Son of God is a mere “personality”.)

How you and others turn The Son of God into a God with 3 split personalities sans a real Son is a mystery to me. I obviously missed the assembly when thy passed out the “3 split personalities” decoder. It must be awkward and unwieldy.

The Scriptures abound with testimonies by the Prophets and Apostles that the literal Son of God was to come, came, and will return. You may be watching for one of Gods “personalities” but I will continue to look forward to the coming of the Son of Man, Jesus the Christ, the literal Son of God in person and in the flesh.

The Biblical account of Abraham offering up Isaac was a similitude of the Father offering up His only begotten Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the world and had nothing to do with “personalities”. It was and is an example of a loving father willing to offer up his treasured and innocent Son whom he loved and cherished as a sacrifice. It was not an example or a similitude of a god offering up his only begotten “personalities” for a sacrifice. What clearer or exact picture could our Father in Heaven have given us of His sacrifice than Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac?

All the scriptures mentioning Jesus as one with the Father are explained adequately and are defined beyond any doubt by Jesus Himself. John 11:17 “… Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.”

It is notably apparent that Jesus was not asking His Father to absorb the Apostles and saints into one of Gods 3 “personalities” so they could be “one” with them. It is abundantly clear that Jesus was talking about being “one” in purpose in the gospel. I quote: “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. (John 17:8)

In fact, the entire chapter of John 17 explains quite clearly the pre and post Earth relationship between Jesus and His Father. It should completely eliminate any discussion of “The being of God has always been comprised of 3 distinct personalities”. After our study of John 17 we are left with no possoble excuse for delusion or manipulation of their true relationship.

Paul, there is only ONE God and Jesus says the ONE God is His Father. Jesus Christ, the Son of God says His Father is the ONE God so it behooves you to take Him at His word and believe Him. I hear the consequence for non-belief is severe.

Paul, I get the impression that you think if God the Father has a Son, who is also a God, that it in some way diminishes the Father God. How could it be diminishing to a Father to have a Son (especially one like Jesus) or how could it be diminishing to a Son to have a Father? Your impression that the “Mormon” doctrine of Jesus being the literal Son of God somehow diminishes God the Father is puzzling. They are not diminished in any way and nothing could be further from the truth. It is recorded in the scriptures that the Son loved and glorified the Father and the Father was pleased with the Son and returned His love. If you were a God, you could not truly nor accurately be called a Father without children. The God of Heaven and Earth is called a Father because of His literal Son for starters.

Jesus, in leaving us with His declarations in John 17, has made sure He left us all with no excuse for delusion, confusion or misrepresentation concerning His relationship with His Father which would includes your; “The being of God has always been comprised of 3 distinct personalities” ambiguous interpretation.

Once you accept the milk of biblical doctrine, the Father and Son as separate and individual persons, and not “personalities”, you will then be on a firm foundation. You will then be standing on the true Rock, and will be better prepared to discuss the meatier “Mormon” (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) doctrine you mentioned.

Thank you again for this opportunity to express my beliefs supported by scripture.

LDSTrue!

P.s. I have heard that it takes intelligence to develop a personality and without intelligence, it is impossible to have a proper personality. If I had the choice, I would choose intelligence over personality for without intelligence you have no … :teeth:

[Krusader]

All I can say is that LDS True has woeful lack of knowledge regarding the hypostatic union, the doctrine derived from Scripture teaching the dual nature of Christ. How sad. His posting is pathetic.

[LDSTrue]

All I can say is that LDS True has woeful lack of knowledge regarding the hypostatic union, the doctrine derived from Scripture teaching the dual nature of Christ. How sad. His posting is pathetic.

Hey Cru:

I want to say thank but your post doesn't sound very nice. It's hard to tell but I think you are upset at me.

You know what they say about the truth don't you ... IT HURTS!!! It appears by your comment that I have caused you a lot of pain.

"hypostatic union"??? What is this? I'll bet you could ask 100 people passing you on the street and they wouldn't know either. However, I'll bet you could ask the same 100 people if they had heard of God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Ghost all would know what you are talking about.

I missed that assembly to, you know the one where they passed out the "hypostatic union" decoder. So did my spell check for that matter.

I have been looking in my Bible for "hypostatic union" and have yet to find a single reference to your "hypostatic union". Hey look, here is what I'm looking for!

hypostatic union = "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21

I guess "holy men of God" have yet to speak of your "hypostatic union" and that must be why I can't find it in the Bible.

I will rely on the independent readers to determine whether or not my post is as you say "pathetic". Some may say; Hey, that is exactly what I was thinking!

LDSTrue

[Krusader]

Hey Cru:

I want to say thank but your post doesn't sound very nice. It's hard to tell but I think you are upset at me.

You know what they say about the truth don't you ... IT HURTS!!! It appears by your comment that I have caused you a lot of pain.

"hypostatic union"??? What is this? I'll bet you could ask 100 people passing you on the street and they wouldn't know either. However, I'll bet you could ask the same 100 people if they had heard of God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Ghost all would know what you are talking about.

I missed that assembly to, you know the one where they passed out the "hypostatic union" decoder. So did my spell check for that matter.

I have been looking in my Bible for "hypostatic union" and have yet to find a single reference to your "hypostatic union". Hey look, here is what I'm looking for!

hypostatic union = "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21

I guess "holy men of God" have yet to speak of your "hypostatic union" and that must be why I can't find it in the Bible.

I will rely on the independent readers to determine whether or not my post is as you say "pathetic". Some may say; Hey, that is exactly what I was thinking!

LDSTrue

LDS True, my posting wasn't intended to "sound nice." You mock the nature of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ - you have no grasp of Christian doctrine, and speak from a dearth of knowledge. What do you expect. At least familiarize yourself with what Christians actually believe before mocking them.

Furthermore, if the term "hypostatic union" is above your head, get a chair and stand on it!

[LDSTrue]

LDS True, my posting wasn't intended to "sound nice." You mock the nature of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ - you have no grasp of Christian doctrine, and speak from a dearth of knowledge. What do you expect. At least familiarize yourself with what Christians actually believe before mocking them.

[QUOTE]Furthermore, if the term "hypostatic union" is above your head, get a chair and stand on it!

Crusader: Have you heard the saying that the first shall be last and the last shall be first? Good, I would like to begin my reply with your last comment.


Furthermore, if the term "hypostatic union" is above your head, get a chair and stand on it!

I appreciate your recommendation and want to share a story with you.

You are right, I found a very large chair marked “For those who do not understand “hypostatic union” and climbed up. Guess what; It was very crowded, nevertheless, I took your advice and found my place in line. After awhile I got impatient because the line wasn’t moving. When I asked what the holdup was I was told that there was no one manning the reception desk. I was told they could not find anyone with Priesthood authority to support or effectively explain “hypostatic union” when taking into account the true teachings contained in the scriptures as recorded in the Bible.

While standing in line I had an opportunity to look around to see who else had a problem with your “hypostatic union” doctrine and I’ll bet you’ll never guess who was there in line in front of me. I’m sure you’ve heard of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Mark, Stephen, Peter, Paul, Philip and Jude. These Holy men were all called by Jesus and inspired to teach His gospel. They received the Priesthood, walked, talked, supped, healed and performed miracles with Jesus, received visions, and were blessed with inspiration from the Holy Ghost. Yet, here they are on the same crowded chair with me as they too were unable to define or determine the scriptural application of your “hypostatic union” theory.

They did mention however that if had been doctrinal or true they would have written it down for the saints of all ages as they too recognized the importance of clarity when teaching the true relationship between the Father and the Son. The line began to disperse once word got around that Jesus and his Apostles had taught the true relationship between the Father and Son without ever having to mention “hypostatic union”. All agreed that it was not important to know anything about the “hypostatic union” theory, as the term is not scriptural.

I too got down off the chair because I was reminded that the true words and terms regarding Jesus, His Father and their true relationship are found by burring your head in the Bible sincerely studying the inspired scriptures and not on a chair with your head in the clouds.

I want to warn you, I discovered while waiting in line up on the chair that there is very little oxygen at the; Help me to understand “hypostatic union” altitude. I’m sure you’ve heard how dangerous a lack of oxygen is to the brain and what the lack of oxygen can do to the reasoning process. I wouldn’t recommend it without first being properly equipped with the fresh air available that the true gospel provides on terra firma without the presumed necessity of having to be elevated by standing on a chair to get understanding.

The moral of this story is:
If you stand on the Rock with the Bible in your hands and breathe in enough true gospel inspiration it will not be necessary for you get on a chair and stick your head in the clouds and gasp for needless theoretical knowledge.

(Disclaimer: This story is fictional but the characters are true and granted the author permission to use this example for the edification of its readers.)


LDS True, my posting wasn't intended to "sound nice."

I thought so, I could tell, I have the gift of discernment and noticed your angst.


You mock the nature of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ

I’m sorry you define the use of actual scripture quotes straight out of the Christian bible verbatim as mocking Christians. I’m sorry you call agreeing with Jesus and the Apostles when they teach that Jesus has a Father and God in Heaven as mocking the trinity and the Deity of Christ.

The Apostles were excellent teachers blessed with discernment and their truly inspired doctrine has lasted over 2,000 years. The controversy must lie with the student who is lacking discernment and is unwilling to accept and understand their inspired teachings. You can huff and puff all you want but you will not blow down Jesus’ own testimony out of His own mouth quoted verbatim that clearly defines His relationship with his Father.

I am surprised that you consider a person quoting verbatim the very words Jesus spoke as mocking Christians. What kind of Christian is offended by hearing the very words spoken by Jesus Himself. Cru, Don’t shoot the messenger; they have been crucified, stoned and shot in the past yet their message persists. I implore you, please Read John 17 with a discerning heart!!!


you have no grasp of Christian doctrine


Hey, I already admitted that I missed the assembly where they passed out the “hypostatic union’ decoder. Darn! I’ll bet it is a really neat shiny foil hat with a lot of fancy wiring and antennas and stuff too. Did you get the model that works on and off the chair? Did it come with its own oxygen tank accessory for those high altitude excursions? Is it easy to maintain? Is it durable, I mean what if you drop it off your chair? Does it function at low altitudes or is it required that you always wear it with your head in the clouds?


and speak from a dearth of knowledge.


Then it won’t be you accusing me of being all puffed up and haughty right?
I quote: “… knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. (1 Cor. 8:1)

Thank you, it sounds like it is a blessing to have “a dearth of knowledge. I would rather be edified than puffed up anyway so I will take your comment as a compliment.

John 17 is really edifying and has increased my knowledge of the relationship between the Father and Son. I highly recommend that you feast upon the words therein for your edification. If you do and are edified then maybe you wont be so mean to me next time. Being nice is always better than being …!


What do you expect

Thank you for asking!

Let see, what do I expect from a Christian reading scriptures with direct quotes from the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the World, the Creator and Mediator, the Christ, the Lord over the whole Earth. Gee, let me think, I would certainly expect a Christian to believe the founder and subject of their religion when He says; “… touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your father; and to my God, and your God.” He could not have said it any clearer and yet you persist in contention. (I want you to notice that Jesus did not come close to mentioning your “hypostatic union” theory as it had no application whatsoever.)

Cru, I would not expect to be falsely accused of; “You mock the nature of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ” by reading, understanding and quoting the very words out of Jesus’ own mouth which are available to you and are recorded in your own Bible.

One of us needs to repent and I am the one standing on the Rock, Jesus, holding in my hands the Bible containing His unalterable declaration and you are the one on the chair with your head in the clouds waving your “hypostatic union” theory flag around. Watch out, you might fall and it is a long way down! Hold on to the Rod!

You asked “what do you expect”, I expect you to read John 17, grasp and understand the truths therein and then repent of your false accusations aimed at me. That is a lot to ask, however, I have faith that if you will apply yourself to the task and feast on the words with a humble repentant heart, sincerely wanting to know the truth, then the truth will be revealed to you too. You too will then be free of chairs, fancy decoders and will no longer be light headed and left behind teetering on a chair with your head stuck in the clouds.

I realize that it could be difficult for you to let loose of your prized decoder, however, you must come to the realization that it is quite worthless if the truth be known. It has not helped you discern or understand the plain and simple scriptural truths and declarations from Jesus to date.


At least familiarize yourself with what Christians actually believe before mocking them.


I have been trying to tell you, I cannot find the term “hypostatic union” or anything resembling your theory in the Bible. Its not that I’m not trying, it just that it is not there in any way shape or form. Could it be that the “union” is not “hypostatic? It has vanished into thin air scripturally, you know, the place at the top of the chair.

Cru: It is apparent that you are still in pain and hurting from my previous posts. This post is likely to cause serious inflammation and additional pain may be the result.

If the symptoms persist, I suggest you take two Book of Mormon tablets and call me in the morning.

This prescription is true and easily digested when combined with a large dose of Holy Ghost. We have millions of testimonials to its effectiveness and ability to cure.

The tablets containing the Book of Mormon cure are guaranteed but provisional.

You can thank me later.
LDSTrue!

[Krusader]

LDS True:
The Book of Mormon is spiritual rat poison, my friend. Hypostatic union means that Christ was fully God and fully Man at one time. Do you disagree with that? Even your Mormon leaders have said that Christ "attained" to godhood in pre-existence. When he came to mortality, did he cease being god? So, maybe you better get back in that line - or better yet, read this:

PHILLIPIANS 2:6-7


You will find the doctrine taught there.

By the way, LDS True, what were you before becoming a Mormon? Did you learn any Christian doctrine before embracing the BOM? Did you just jettison it for Smithism? I'd be interested in hearing your spiritual background.

LDS True, you may think you're standing on a rock, but that rock is sand, and Christ will judge all who do not repent from false doctrine.

[Trout]

LDSTrue:
"hypostatic union"??? What is this? I'll bet you could ask 100 people passing you on the street and they wouldn't know either. However, I'll bet you could ask the same 100 people if they had heard of God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Ghost all would know what you are talking about.

And I'll bet that if you asked the same two questions in Reformed Egyptian, no one would understand what you were saying. :lol2:

And I'll bet if you asked the same 100 people if they had heard of Snap, Crackle and Pop, all would know what you are talking about.:yes:



LDSTrue:
I missed that assembly to[sic], you know the one where they passed out the "hypostatic union" decoder. So did my spell check for that matter.

I have been looking in my Bible for "hypostatic union" and have yet to find a single reference to your "hypostatic union". Hey look, here is what I'm looking for!

There are concepts that are implied, and concepts that are expressed, any one with an elementary understanding of scripture exegesis realizes that.

Just because the word, "hypostasis" doesn't appear within the text of the Bible, doesn't mean that the concept of the hypostatic union isn't a Biblical concept.



LDSTrue:
hypostatic union = "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21

That is not the definition of hypostatic union.



LDSTrue:
I guess "holy men of God" have yet to speak of your "hypostatic union" and that must be why I can't find it in the Bible.

The term, "Heavenly Mother" doesn't appear in the Bible, yet I would think it safe to say that you believe in a Heavenly Mother, right LDSTrue?



LDSTrue:
I will rely on the independent readers to determine whether or not my post is as you say "pathetic". Some may say; Hey, that is exactly what I was thinking!

LDSTrue

As an independent reader, I find your understanding of hypostasis, pathetic.

[LDSTrue]

LDS True:
The Book of Mormon is spiritual rat poison, my friend. Hypostatic union means that Christ was fully God and fully Man at one time. Do you disagree with that? Even your Mormon leaders have said that Christ "attained" to godhood in pre-existence. When he came to mortality, did he cease being god? So, maybe you better get back in that line - or better yet, read this:

PHILLIPIANS 2:6-7


You will find the doctrine taught there.

By the way, LDS True, what were you before becoming a Mormon? Did you learn any Christian doctrine before embracing the BOM? Did you just jettison it for Smithism? I'd be interested in hearing your spiritual background.

LDS True, you may think you're standing on a rock, but that rock is sand, and Christ will judge all who do not repent from false doctrine.


LDS True:
The Book of Mormon is spiritual rat poison, my friend.

Cru: a "friend" of mine would know better than to make disparaging remarks about a book that records and demonstrates the sacrifice, love, concern and hope the Godhead has for us. I choose my friends wisely and hopefully you will one day be a true friend of mine in the true Gospel.

Cru: Most realize that it would not be wise to mock and ridicule a testimony and witness of Jesus Christ prepared and given to us by the Godhead. Yet, here you are ...

"Both" (meaning two (2) separate and distinct individual persons) the Father and the Son went to a lot of trouble to orchestrate and insure the recording of the events of their involvement with the "other sheep". His visit to His “sheep” in Jerusalem is recorded for all so I don’t understand all the angst over the recording and coming forth of the written record of His visit to His “other sheep” as mentioned in the first record, commonly know as the New Testament.

The term "other seep" is not a Mormon term or concept and can be found in your very own Bible. The million-dollar question is; whom did Jesus consider His sheep while He was on the Earth and in particular in Judaea with the Israelites while He claimed to be surrounded by His sheep? If He is standing in the middle of His flock of sheep in Jerusalem then where would He have to go to visit His other Israelite sheep? Is there a clue in there somewhere and can you discern its true meaning?

Jesus, in the New Testament, mentions an event that involved His visit to “other sheep” that He fulfilled and that visit fulfilled is recorded for all in the Book of Mormon "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". Do you get the picture? Please put on your thinking cap, polish those antennas and put them to work. Try to focus on Jesus and the fulfillment of prophecy in these “Latter Days”. Fine tune those antennas and try and get the true picture of what the fulfillment of this prophecy would look like. What do you imagine it would look like if someone was speaking to you from the dust about Jesus and His visit to His “other sheep” (sheep = Israelite). Can you see it now? If you see the Book of Mormon “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” then you have successfully tuned into and are receiving the true and accurate picture. That true picture represents the tablets that contain the power to cure you!!!

Billions on the Earth today do not believe the events recorded in the New Testament. Billions on the Earth today do not agree with its message that Jesus is truly and literally, the Son of God and that every knee shall bow and every mouth shall confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father. The Book of Mormon supports, shores up, goes hand in hand with and testifies that the events in the New Testament are accurate and true. Now, the Billions of non-believers have to go on record as denying both written records. Jesus thought it was important that a second witness of His ministry and sacrifice be made available to the Muslims, Hindu, Buddha, Atheists etc. You may not need a second witness, however, you must agree that they surely do.

It is recorded in your scriptures where Jesus sends out His witnesses two by two. Does two by two give you a clue of how the New Testament and Book of Mormon combined are a clear indication that Jesus is sending the testimony of His ministry out two by two to the non-believers of the New Testament. They too are now left with no excuse at judgement. You must agree, two witnesses always transcend one.

The Book of Mormon is surely not "rat poison" as your remark implies but is instead a literal Godsend from Heaven. That sacred book was delivered to us in our day to act as, and is literally "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". You should be embracing it, not denigrating it.

I truly hope you will tie the Book of Mormon in with Jesus visiting His "other sheep", sending witness "two by two", along with "one "speaking from the dust" and "in the dispensation of the fullness of times will set up His Kingdom, a stone cut without hands, as Jesus intended His sheep to do in these latter days.


Hypostatic union means that Christ was fully God and fully Man at one time.


Cru: Is their a three quarter or half fully God and Man? Does your statement mean that Christ could have been less than "fully"? Does your use of the term "fully" mean completely? Do you mean He was completely God and completely Man at the same time? Do you mean to insinuate that because Jesus was "fully" God and "fully" Man that He is and was a "fully" God and "fully" Man without a Father? Does your term "fully" exclude someone very important to Jesus? Does your “fully” mean exclusively?


Hypostatic union means that Christ was fully God and fully Man at one time. Do you disagree with that?

If you had said that Jesus is a God, the Son of God His Father who is also a God I would agree. If you had said Christ, a separate and distinct individual God, a member of the Godhead prior to coming to Earth, came as the only begotten of the Father I would have readily agreed with you. However, your statement "fully God and "fully" Man appears to have excluded a very important member of the Godhead ... HIS God, THE FATHER GOD!!! Where is the Father in your “fully”?

I will discuss with you the same subject I discussed with PaulT. Is it diminishing to a father to have a son and is it diminishing to a son to have a father? It is not diminishing to a father to have a son (especially one like Jesus) and it is not diminishing to a son to have a father. Our Father God has a Son God and it is not in any way diminishing to either one to have a Father God, Son God relationship. In fact, scripture (your scriptures in particular) records that the Father loves His Son and the Son loves His Father and the Son glorified the Father.

How does a Son glorify a Father if the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son both being the same God person at the same time??? Is this where you get on that teetering chair with the shinny foil cap decoder? This is where reason and sound doctrine ends and mystery and confusion enters in. This is where I get out of line and split to the top of the mountains and stand on the Rock.


When he came to mortality, did he cease being god?


When Jesus God left His Father and God He did not, nor will He ever cease to be a God, the Son of God. However, it is obvious that from the time He was born until the beginning of His ministry He was unable to exercise the full authority and power of His Godhead membership. His Father God was in Heaven watching over Him and regardless of the fact that Jesus was advancing through the normal stages of mortality, first a baby, then toddler, teenager, young man, and finally a fully grown man ready to begin His ministry, He still had a Father God in Heaven lovingly watching over Him = Father God watching over His Son God while Son God is on Earth.

Now that Jesus has ascended to His Father, we now have our Father God in Heaven along with our Savior God, The Son of God in Heaven. I'll demonstrate some math skills I hope you can demonstrate later. I will show you mathematically that which you are obviously having a difficult time understanding scripturally:

1 Father = 1 God + 1 Jesus = 1 God-Son of God = A total of 2 Gods.
2 Gods + 1 Holy Ghost = 3 or tri (3) or Trinity = Godhead!!! See 2 + 1 = 3 or 1+1+1=3!!!

I challenge you to use simple math and demonstrate for me your “Hypostatic union” “fully God”, “fully Man” equation so I can determine what you are talking about and get a clear picture of your theory. To make a fair comparison, please try to present it in the same format used above.


So, maybe you better get back in that line


I tried to make it clear to you that the line isn't going anywhere. There is not one Apostle, past or present, with the Priesthood keys and authority confirming or explaining your term "Hypostatic union". The term is not in the scriptures, besides it is a dead end and lost cause to try to pursue it further. Furthermore, who needs it when you have the true sure words of Apostles with keys?


or better yet, read this: PHILLIPIANS 2:6-7


Thank you, I will. Give me a minute.

Hey, I believe you left out some important verses that will help us understand verses 6 and 7 and put them into context. The important context verses you failed to include in your suggestion are verses 5 & 8-11. This is what your "Hypostatic union" support scripture says with the addition of verse 5. I quote verbatim:
"5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus”
“6 Who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”
“7 but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"


You will find the doctrine taught there.


These are your "Hypostatic union" doctrine theory support scriptures? These scriptures are the ones you claim eliminate and teach the elimination of God our Father, the God and Father of the Son of God, Jesus? You really believe those two verses explain away Jesus' own words out of His own mouth as recorded in John 17 about His pre and post Earth relationship with His Father? Now I can grasp the concept of and can lay hold of righteous indignation!!! Our Father will not disappear as easily as you think!

You assume that because the Apostle Paul teaches that we should have the same mind set as Jesus that our mind set somehow eliminates God our Father, Jesus' Father and God? Jesus left this earth confirming the existence of His Father and there is abundant proof of His existence.

I'll bet Paul the Apostle has a few choice words to say to you for misinterpreting and then misrepresenting his inspired words. I wouldn't want to be you in that confrontation! You had better go outside and practice falling down and getting hurt so you will be better prepared for what comes next if you continue to hold to your statements.

To get the true meaning of verses 6 and 7 it is imperative that you continue reading through verses 8, 9,10 and 11! Get the true and complete message so you can understand the verses in context!
"8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
"9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
"10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
"11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

These verses clearly inform the discerning reader that Jesus "became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross" His God, the Father of Jesus, exalted Him and gave Him a name that is above every name "to the glory of God the Father". PLEASE NOTICE: It does not say "fully God" gave himself, the "fully Man" ,a name above every name to the glory of himself "fully God".


By the way, LDS True, what were you before becoming a Mormon? Did you learn any Christian doctrine before embracing the BOM? Did you just jettison it for Smithism? I'd be interested in hearing your spiritual background.

Cru, thank you for asking.

It all started a very long time ago "when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" while "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". After I witnessed that sad but glorious event I was summoned to a meeting where I was called, set apart and ordained to come to Earth to be... Hey, wait a minute Cru, not so fast.

Nice try, I almost forgot who I was talking to. All you need to know about me is that I know Joseph Smith was a true Prophet called in these latter days to usher in the dispensation of the fullness of times. I know he sealed his testimony with his blood along with thousands of others and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lords kingdom restored to Earth in these latter days. The Kingdom restoration along with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is the beginning of the fulfillment of all the latter day prophecies that have been spoken by all the Prophets since the beginning. I know I am truly right and you are gravely wrong. I know you are ignoring the signs of the times and if you continue in your illusions, it will be to your detriment and inevitable regret.

What’s the matter Cru, your anti-Mormon cannon running low on fodder? If you think I am going to give you my testimony to trod under your feet you have another think coming. I have seen what you do to honest, sincere and true Mormon testimonies and I refuse to …

Besides, you have been provided enough fodder to lock and load without mine. You are sooo busy shooting off your anti-Mormon Bismarck cannon that you have failed to listen and look for the signs of the times that are in reality surrounding and crashing in on you. You are not sailing in calm waters with your questionable out of sync opinions. You will be sunk along with the Bismarck and Titanic unless you keep watch for the enemy ships and the hard to detect Ice Burgs which are disastrous signs of the times. It has been proven that catastrophe strikes if you fail to recognize potential hazards in time to react. Just like the rest of us, you too require a watchman in the tower, a Prophet and Apostles to guide and protect you to insure you don’t sink out of sight.


LDS True, you may think you're standing on a rock, but that rock is sand, and Christ will judge all who do not repent from false doctrine.

You call standing on John 17 "false doctrine"? You call quoting verbatim the words Jesus spoke out of His own mouth about His relationship with His Father and are clearly recorded for everyone in the world with a Bible to read "false doctrine"? Is this evidence for another case and cause for righteous indignation?

It is obvious to all, which one of us is quoting Christ verbatim and which one of us is applying terms and terminology that never came out of His mouth. Jesus said He was the Son of God, not I am "fully God". Jesus said I came from the Father, not I am "fully Man". It is obvious that I am on the side of Jesus with His quotes and you are making it very difficult to determine just exactly whose side you are supporting.

Remember, we will be judged by every word that comes out of our mouths so if I were you I would hesitate in the future to call the very words Jesus spoke quoted in John 17 as "false doctrine"!!! You must admit, it is unusual conduct for a “Christian” to belittle an entire chapter in the New Testament.

Lets hope this discussion has been as edifying to you as it has been revealing to me. Now I know what to do with certain terms on contact. A strong dose of discernment while studying John 17 is all that is needed to cure all the confusion and eliminate the need for questionable Godhead theory.

Cru: Thanks again for the opportunity and exercise.
LDSTrue

PS Take the cure!!! It is sweet to the taste and very agreeable when taken with the Holy Ghost as it was Him that saw to it that the tablets received the most effective compilation.

[Krusader]

LDS True, your "Godhead" is polytheistic. Jews never believed in more than ONE God. Christians, likewise, believe in ONE God. For Christians, God is a tri-personal center of being. There is so much overwhelming evidence in the Bible that there is only ONE God, that Mormons must be spiritually blinded by the god of this world to ignore that.

For Christians 1+1+1 = 1. This is the Mystery of the Godhead, and what is taught in MY Scripture. If you'll reread your post, you keep referring to the Bible as MY Scripture, is that in opposition to your Scripture, the BOM and the rest of the Mormon collateral books?

I have no sacred regard for the Book of Mormon; as far as I'm concerned if anyone with just a little knowledge of Scripture reads it, and the D&C, one can easily discern how Smith ripped-off major parts of the Bible and fed his plagiarism into the mouths of the BOM characters. Do you know the Bible? Have you ever really sat down and read it? No discerning individual can help but notice the poor imitation of the sacred words of Scripture presented as "Another Testament of Jesus Christ."

I've always found it interesting that the Mormons claim they have "another" testament. Aren't they at all familiar with the words of the Apostle Paul (Galatians 1) warning against an angel who would bring "another" gospel? Where were their heads at when they called the BOM "another?" For readers that would like to view a good evaluation of this "another" gospel of Mormonism, concentrating on the Mormon Jesus, please see the following:

http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/anotherjesus.htm


LDS True, if going out two by two is the sign of the true church, then we should all be flocking down to the Kingdom Hall or joining with the Cooneyites (the two by twos). Hey, Satan can imitate anything, and he has his missionaries, too.

LDS True, I realize that you do not have a good grasp of Christian doctrine, nor does it seem that you thoroughly studied Mormonism before becoming a Mormon. I know that it is just natural to defend something you have committed your life to, even though it is wrong. But defense of error will never please God and will endanger your soul. Jesus said He was the Truth - and He will deliver you from the grasp of false prophets and doctrines of demons.

The "other sheep" the Lord spoke of were the Gentiles, and this was fulfilled when Paul went to the Gentile sheep to bring them the Gospel.

Of His sheep, Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me," John 10:26. You have heard the voice of a false prophet, Smith, and followed that voice. Smith abandoned his flock when the law was after him and he and his brother, Hyrum, took off from Nauvoo. It was Emma who had to chase him down and bring him back. Of the false shepherds, Jesus said, "But he that is an hireling and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth," John 10:12. Smith's fleeing the law, leaving his flock stranded, is absolute proof that Smith was a "hireling" of whom Jesus spoke. Jesus never fled - He was the Good Shepherd! (For a complete account of Smith and his brother, Hyrum, fleeing across the river to avoid the law and being chased down by his wife prior to his incarceration in Carthage jail, see the book, "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith," by Newell and Avery).

You know, LDS True, it's not too late to listen to the voice of the true Shepherd. He is calling you, and He, Himself, is the real "cure" for sin. Your works ( temple rituals, undergarments) are worthless in God's eyes, but the Blood of Christ is of infinite value. Exchange your filthy rags for the Salvation Christ will freely give you if you but ask.

[Bill the Cat]

I know this was directed at Crusader, but there is a TON of wrong information here.




"Both" (meaning two (2) separate and distinct individual persons) the Father and the Son went to a lot of trouble to orchestrate and insure the recording of the events of their involvement with the "other sheep".

The "other sheep" are the Gentiles. The passage says:

John 10
16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.


proof? Surely!
Ephesians 2
11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands--



14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.



His visit to His “sheep” in Jerusalem is recorded for all so I don’t understand all the angst over the recording and coming forth of the written record of His visit to His “other sheep” as mentioned in the first record, commonly know as the New Testament.

He did not personally visit the "other sheep" but sent the Apostles to them. And through the Holy Spirit and the cross, made the two into one body (flock) as Paul explained.


The term "other seep" is not a Mormon term or concept and can be found in your very own Bible. The million-dollar question is; whom did Jesus consider His sheep while He was on the Earth and in particular in Judaea with the Israelites while He claimed to be surrounded by His sheep? If He is standing in the middle of His flock of sheep in Jerusalem then where would He have to go to visit His other Israelite sheep? Is there a clue in there somewhere and can you discern its true meaning?

Sure, it's called Ephesians 2. Also, Jesus explains earlier in John 10 who His sheep are:

John 10
15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.


If the Gentiles are not the other sheep, then Jesus did not lay His life down for them. But thanks to Paul, it is clear as a bell who the other sheep are.


Jesus, in the New Testament, mentions an event that involved His visit to “other sheep” that He fulfilled and that visit fulfilled is recorded for all in the Book of Mormon "Another Testament of Jesus Christ".

So assumption 1 is false which invalidates this previous statement.


Do you get the picture? Please put on your thinking cap, polish those antennas and put them to work. Try to focus on Jesus and the fulfillment of prophecy in these “Latter Days”. Fine tune those antennas and try and get the true picture of what the fulfillment of this prophecy would look like.

I'd rather focus on Jesus and what His Word says about who the other sheep were.


What do you imagine it would look like if someone was speaking to you from the dust about Jesus and His visit to His “other sheep” (sheep = Israelite).

Sheep does not mean Israelite, or do you really believe that Jesus died only for the Israelites? For the correct answer, see John 10:15.


Can you see it now? If you see the Book of Mormon “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” then you have successfully tuned into and are receiving the true and accurate picture. That true picture represents the tablets that contain the power to cure you!!!

The Book of Mormon is a 19th century novel. It is not an accurate historical testament of Jesus, nor is it the "most correct book on earth". All the power to cure you is in the Bible and with the true historical Jesus of Nazareth, and the true Son of God. Now, see how easy it is to throw around unfounded assertations?



Billions on the Earth today do not believe the events recorded in the New Testament. Billions on the Earth today do not agree with its message that Jesus is truly and literally, the Son of God and that every knee shall bow and every mouth shall confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father.

So? What's your point here?


The Book of Mormon supports, shores up, goes hand in hand with and testifies that the events in the New Testament are accurate and true.

Yet it was so important that no one knew it existed, not even the Apostles?


Now, the Billions of non-believers have to go on record as denying both written records. Jesus thought it was important that a second witness of His ministry and sacrifice be made available to the Muslims, Hindu, Buddha, Atheists etc. You may not need a second witness, however, you must agree that they surely do.

He needed no second witness in written form. Nor do the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or anyone else. The Bible is sufficient to proclaim who He is, and has been for almost 2000 years. The BOM is not only unnecessary, as witnessed to the fact that it never touched the hands of any of His most trusted apostles, but to put it on par with the Bible is laughable.


It is recorded in your scriptures where Jesus sends out His witnesses two by two. Does two by two give you a clue of how the New Testament and Book of Mormon combined are a clear indication that Jesus is sending the testimony of His ministry out two by two to the non-believers of the New Testament.

Then it would have been necessary for everyone from the moment of His death and resurrection. There are 66 books of the Bible. That's 66 separate witnesses. The BOM, even if it were true, is unnecessary at best.


They too are now left with no excuse at judgement. You must agree, two witnesses always transcend one.

Certainly, but again, there are already 66.


The Book of Mormon is surely not "rat poison" as your remark implies but is instead a literal Godsend from Heaven.

Then He would not have withheld it from those He loved the most, namely, His disciples.


That sacred book was delivered to us in our day to act as, and is literally "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". You should be embracing it, not denigrating it.

It's a 19th century novel. It deserves no more, or honestly no less, respect than the Koran.


I truly hope you will tie the Book of Mormon in with Jesus visiting His "other sheep",

Paul's mission to the gentiles fulfilled the other sheep being included, not the BOM


sending witness "two by two",

The 66 books of the Bible fulfill the "2 by 2" witnesses. The BOM is extraneous.


along with "one "speaking from the dust"

UGH!!! :argh: Joseph used this scripture (Another from his favorite source, Isaiah) so BADLY out of context!!!

Isaiah 29
Jerusalem Is Warned

1 Woe, O Ariel, Ariel the city where David once camped!
Add year to year, observe your feasts on schedule.
2 I will bring distress to Ariel,
And she will be a city of lamenting and mourning;
And she will be like an Ariel to me.
3 I will camp against you encircling you,
And I will set siegeworks against you,
And I will raise up battle towers against you.
4 Then you will be brought low;
From the earth you will speak,
And from the dust where you are prostrate
Your words will come.
Your voice will also be like that of a spirit from the ground,
And your speech will whisper from the dust.
5 But the multitude of your enemies will become like fine dust,
And the multitude of the ruthless ones like the chaff which blows away;
And it will happen instantly, suddenly.
6 From the LORD of hosts you will be punished with thunder and earthquake
and loud noise,
With whirlwind and tempest and the flame of a consuming fire.
7 And the multitude of all the nations who wage war against Ariel,
Even all who wage war against her and her stronghold, and who
distress her,


This is referring to a judgement on Jerusalem, not the BOM.


and "in the dispensation of the fullness of times will set up His Kingdom, a stone cut without hands,

The Kingdom began long before Joseph Smith. The BOM has nothing to do with the Kingdom


as Jesus intended His sheep to do in these latter days.

We, the sheep, continue the work of building the Kingdom, and have done so since it came into being. The BOM has no place in that, because if it did, it would have been available to the very apostles that the church was founded on. But again, it was not.


If you had said that Jesus is a God, the Son of God His Father who is also a God I would agree. If you had said Christ, a separate and distinct individual God, a member of the Godhead prior to coming to Earth, came as the only begotten of the Father I would have readily agreed with you.

Well, she can't say that because there is only one God.

Isa 44
6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
7 'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
8 'Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.'"


You and the Mormon faith betray this direct statement from God Himself.




I will discuss with you the same subject I discussed with PaulT. Is it diminishing to a father to have a son and is it diminishing to a son to have a father? It is not diminishing to a father to have a son (especially one like Jesus) and it is not diminishing to a son to have a father. Our Father God has a Son God and it is not in any way diminishing to either one to have a Father God, Son God relationship. In fact, scripture (your scriptures in particular) records that the Father loves His Son and the Son loves His Father and the Son glorified the Father.

Yet they also clearly state that there is only one God. Your polytheism can not answer that aspect at all. Our monotheism with a trinitarian understanding covers it perfectly.


How does a Son glorify a Father if the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son both being the same God person at the same time???

That's Arianism, not trinitarianism.


Is this where you get on that teetering chair with the shinny foil cap decoder? This is where reason and sound doctrine ends and mystery and confusion enters in. This is where I get out of line and split to the top of the mountains and stand on the Rock.

The rock is God, and there is only one God. Man can not serve two masters, yet with the Mormon polytheism, they must serve 3.




When Jesus God left His Father and God He did not, nor will He ever cease to be a God, the Son of God. However, it is obvious that from the time He was born until the beginning of His ministry He was unable to exercise the full authority and power of His Godhead membership.

Argument from silence. The only instance recorded of His actions is a trip to the temple where He showed He was no ordinary 12 year old boy. What He did the other 29.9 years is silent. Could He have used His divine powers? :nsm: But to emphatically say He could not is a fallicy.



His Father God was in Heaven watching over Him and regardless of the fact that Jesus was advancing through the normal stages of mortality, first a baby, then toddler, teenager, young man, and finally a fully grown man ready to begin His ministry, He still had a Father God in Heaven lovingly watching over Him = Father God watching over His Son God while Son God is on Earth.

Again, you assume that there are more than one God, which He Himself says there is not.


Now that Jesus has ascended to His Father, we now have our Father God in Heaven along with our Savior God, The Son of God in Heaven. I'll demonstrate some math skills I hope you can demonstrate later. I will show you mathematically that which you are obviously having a difficult time understanding scripturally:

1 Father = 1 God + 1 Jesus = 1 God-Son of God = A total of 2 Gods.
2 Gods + 1 Holy Ghost = 3 or tri (3) or Trinity = Godhead!!! See 2 + 1 = 3 or 1+1+1=3!!!


Polytheism. Isaiah said God + "there is no other" = 1 God. Do you make God a liar?


I challenge you to use simple math and demonstrate for me your “Hypostatic union” “fully God”, “fully Man” equation so I can determine what you are talking about and get a clear picture of your theory. To make a fair comparison, please try to present it in the same format used above.

Impossible. God is not bound by space and time, so can't be contained in a simple 1+1 relationship.


I tried to make it clear to you that the line isn't going anywhere. There is not one Apostle, past or present, with the Priesthood keys and authority confirming or explaining your term "Hypostatic union".

Begs the question of authority. Prove that the council members at Nicaea did not have any priesthood authority (hint, see 1 Pet 2:9).


The term is not in the scriptures, besides it is a dead end and lost cause to try to pursue it further. Furthermore, who needs it when you have the true sure words of Apostles with keys?

Begs the question again. Boy, you sure are full of logical fallacies today :lol:




Thank you, I will. Give me a minute.

Hey, I believe you left out some important verses that will help us understand verses 6 and 7 and put them into context. The important context verses you failed to include in your suggestion are verses 5 & 8-11. This is what your "Hypostatic union" support scripture says with the addition of verse 5. I quote verbatim:
"5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus”
“6 Who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”
“7 but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"


Reconcile this in your belief with the Isaiah passage above that there is no other God. I sure can!



These are your "Hypostatic union" doctrine theory support scriptures? These scriptures are the ones you claim eliminate and teach the elimination of God our Father, the God and Father of the Son of God, Jesus? You really believe those two verses explain away Jesus' own words out of His own mouth as recorded in John 17 about His pre and post Earth relationship with His Father? Now I can grasp the concept of and can lay hold of righteous indignation!!! Our Father will not disappear as easily as you think!


Why do you think that trinitarians are trying to "eliminate" God the Father. He is ever present in Trinitarian belief, yet our belief fully lines up with the fact that there is only one God; yours does not.



I'll bet Paul the Apostle has a few choice words to say to you for misinterpreting and then misrepresenting his inspired words.

And you have proof? Did Paul appear to you too and give you the keys to the Shammalammadingdong priesthood so you can act as his mouthpiece?


I wouldn't want to be you in that confrontation! You had better go outside and practice falling down and getting hurt so you will be better prepared for what comes next if you continue to hold to your statements.

ANd if you truly buy Mormonism's concept of God, then you'd better be prepared for a NASTY burn :fire2:



These verses clearly inform the discerning reader that Jesus "became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross" His God, the Father of Jesus, exalted Him and gave Him a name that is above every name "to the glory of God the Father".

From your paradigm, it may be clear to you, but again, it clearly violates God's own words in Isaiah.


PLEASE NOTICE: It does not say "fully God" gave himself, the "fully Man" ,a name above every name to the glory of himself "fully God".

Sigh, now you move to thinking we are Nestorians...




Cru, thank you for asking.

It all started a very long time ago "when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" while "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". After I witnessed that sad but glorious event I was summoned to a meeting where I was called, set apart and ordained to come to Earth to be...


Please warn me beore you do that again. I was drinking some water and now it is all over my monitor...


Nice try, I almost forgot who I was talking to. All you need to know about me is that I know Joseph Smith was a true Prophet called in these latter days to usher in the dispensation of the fullness of times.

And I know Joseph Smith was a dreadful liar.


I know he sealed his testimony with his blood

And killed 2 others in the process with a smuggled gun. Great testimony.:no:


along with thousands of others and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lords kingdom restored to Earth in these latter days.

The Lord's Kingdom has never left the Earth. It has been preserved by the saints from the ages and the gates of Hell have, nor will ever prevail against it (which eliminates the need for a restoration)


The Kingdom restoration along with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is the beginning of the fulfillment of all the latter day prophecies that have been spoken by all the Prophets since the beginning.

There was never a need for a restoration, so your statement is false.


I know I am truly right and you are gravely wrong. I know you are ignoring the signs of the times and if you continue in your illusions, it will be to your detriment and inevitable regret.

And I know you have been duped by a snakeoil salesman who had a narcisistic complex and borrowed from every source he could lay his grubby hands on.


What’s the matter Cru, your anti-Mormon cannon running low on fodder? If you think I am going to give you my testimony to trod under your feet you have another think coming. I have seen what you do to honest, sincere and true Mormon testimonies and I refuse to …

You don't have faith in your own testimony? My, doesn't the Word say that the devil is defeated by the power of their testimony?


Besides, you have been provided enough fodder to lock and load without mine. You are sooo busy shooting off your anti-Mormon Bismarck cannon that you have failed to listen and look for the signs of the times that are in reality surrounding and crashing in on you. You are not sailing in calm waters with your questionable out of sync opinions. You will be sunk along with the Bismarck and Titanic unless you keep watch for the enemy ships and the hard to detect Ice Burgs which are disastrous signs of the times. It has been proven that catastrophe strikes if you fail to recognize potential hazards in time to react.

Cute analogy. But it turns around just as easy on you. You apparently are the one sailing on the USS Joe Smith which has a single destination :fire2:. Get on the lifeboat of the REAL Jesus Christ.



Just like the rest of us, you too require a watchman in the tower, a Prophet and Apostles to guide and protect you to insure you don’t sink out of sight.

We have one. It's called our relationship with Jesus Christ and the teachings of historic Christianity, not the heresies of Joseph Smith and Mormonism.




You call standing on John 17 "false doctrine"?
Whn you ignore Isaiah 44, yes. Also, you have to gloss over John 17:3 where Jesus calls the Father THE ONLY TRUE GOD. No mention of Himself, the Holy Spirit, Michael the archangel, or Heavenly grandfather. Are they not true Gods?


You call quoting verbatim the words Jesus spoke out of His own mouth about His relationship with His Father and are clearly recorded for everyone in the world with a Bible to read "false doctrine"? Is this evidence for another case and cause for righteous indignation?

When you ignore the other words from His mouth and His holy prophet Isaiah's mouth, absolutely.


It is obvious to all, which one of us is quoting Christ verbatim and which one of us is applying terms and terminology that never came out of His mouth. Jesus said He was the Son of God, not I am "fully God". Jesus said I came from the Father, not I am "fully Man". It is obvious that I am on the side of Jesus with His quotes and you are making it very difficult to determine just exactly whose side you are supporting.

It is obvious that you are a polytheist, and contradicting the very words of God.


Remember, we will be judged by every word that comes out of our mouths so if I were you I would hesitate in the future to call the very words Jesus spoke quoted in John 17 as "false doctrine"!!! You must admit, it is unusual conduct for a “Christian” to belittle an entire chapter in the New Testament.

And if I were you, I'd reread the part where Jesus said that there is only one God, not multiple millions from eternity past.


Lets hope this discussion has been as edifying to you as it has been revealing to me. Now I know what to do with certain terms on contact. A strong dose of discernment while studying John 17 is all that is needed to cure all the confusion and eliminate the need for questionable Godhead theory.

Practice what you preach there LDS... especially John 17:3
John 17
3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

So we are left with either:
1. Jesus is a God and the Holy Spirit is another God and Jesus is lying here
2. Jesus is not really a God at all because if He were, He would have to be another true God.
3. Jesus and the Father are both God in a trinitarian sense.

Now, whose view is questionable?

[LDSTrue]

Hey Trout:Thank you for noticing and responding to my post.


Quote:
LDSTrue:
"hypostatic union"??? What is this? I'll bet you could ask 100 people passing you on the street and they wouldn't know either. However, I'll bet you could ask the same 100 people if they had heard of God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Ghost all would know what you are talking about.


And I'll bet that if you asked the same two questions in Reformed Egyptian, no one would understand what you were saying.

And I'll bet if you asked the same 100 people if they had heard of Snap, Crackle and Pop, all would know what you are talking about.


Hey Trout: Way to go! Here Cru and I are trying to have a serious conversation and you come in with your jokes turning our serious discussion into levity with your silly pretend conceptions. :teeth: Do you realize what you have done? How will it be possible for either Cru or I to continue to seriously focus on the Godhead having Snap, Crackle and Pop pop into our heads at their mention? Thanks pal! :wink:

The very idea that I would know enough about Reformed Egyptian to ask anyone anything using it is seriously funny. To think that I could understand them if they responded in anything but good ol’ English is hilarious.

Hey wait, I probably have heard it now that I think about it. Here in Southern California English has become a second language and most sound foreign to me anyway so it is very likely that I have heard Reformed Egyptian spoken here. Do they speak it in Mexico? :smile:

Seriously though, I don’t know how funny it really is to compare the recognition of Snap, Crackle and Pop with the names of members of the Godhead in a survey though. Wait! Is that thunder I hear and lightning I see flashing above! Pardon me while I pause and jump under my desk. … Whew! I’m glad the storm passed over without my destruction, however, it looks like it is gaining strength and heading east.

Trout, consider me your watchman in the tower, all those who are laughing and enjoying your Snap, Crackle and Pop comparison living East of California had better dive under something grounded and staked to ward off the potential destruction. Or better yet, head to the mountains and seek the Rock for protection from the coming storms that will surely ensue.

It looks like a bad one is coming and knowledge of Snap, Crackle and Pop will afford little if any protection. The three separate and distinct individuals of the true Godhead are very capable of administering aid and comfort to those knowing not where to turn to avoid certain destruction by the coming calamities. Trout, I realize we are talking about public awareness of Biblical terms, common verses uncommon, and I get your point, can you discern mine?




Quote:
LDSTrue:
I missed that assembly to[sic], you know the one where they passed out the "hypostatic union" decoder. So did my spell check for that matter.

I have been looking in my Bible for "hypostatic union" and have yet to find a single reference to your "hypostatic union". Hey look, here is what I'm looking for!


There are concepts that are implied, and concepts that are expressed, any one with an elementary understanding of scripture exegesis realizes that.


I just love this web site! I am continually bombarded with new terminology and new applications of accepted old school terms and doctrine. Not only do I get exposed to conceptual terms like “hypostasis” and “hypostatic” for the first time and now here comes “concepts implied and “concepts expressed” along with “scripture exegesis”.

It truly is a great time to be alive possessing the facilities with abilities intact that enable me to read and understand both old and new scripture. How blessed' is the Holy Ghost that brings light and truth to us through our ability to read and understand true principles and doctrine as outlined in scripture.

Exegesis Synonyms = definition, clarification, construction, description, explanation etc.

Trout, I appreciate the fact that you are trying to introduce me to new terms and concepts and you have helped me realize that I was applying one of your terms without actually knowing it. Take for instance my comment concerning this scripture:

“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17)

Your statement “There are concepts that are implied, and concepts that are expressed,” is very useful here. The concept that Jesus has a Father and God in Heaven that He has yet ascended to would qualify under the “concepts expressed” would it not?

Hey Trout, I think I notice another opportunity to use your “concepts implied” here as well. Is not Jesus also implying that He has a Father and God in Heaven waiting for Him who expects Jesus to ascend to Him?

Wow, this is unbelievable, I get to apply both “concepts implied” and “concepts expressed” at the same time within one important scripture.

Hey, this is too good to be true. LOOK! By applying both of your “concepts implied”, and “concepts expressed” I have used your “elementary understanding of scripture exegesis” because of the clarification and explanation of my own statement.

Am I living large or what! This is a time for celebration! A Trifecta!!! An Eagle on a par five if there ever was one! Thank you soooo much Trout, you provided clarity and understanding and have taught me new applications of terms that I can now hope to use with skill and effectiveness. Bless you!!!


Just because the word, "hypostasis" doesn't appear within the text of the Bible, doesn't mean that the concept of the hypostatic union isn't a Biblical concept.

I know, I was just searching and hoping to find it listed somewhere, anywhere in the Bible. You must agree and understand that when someone implies that their concept is biblical and that concept appears in the Bible that it is easier to accept that particular concept as being Biblical? Just a thought.


Quote:
LDSTrue:
hypostatic union = "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21


That is not the definition of hypostatic union.


Here it is folks, proof positive! “You can fool some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.”

Ya caught me Trout. It was a test and you passed with flying colors. It goes to prove just how difficult it is to make up or invent new meanings for established Biblical doctrine. Most two legged trout I have come across would have fallen for it. I guess you’re the exception and exceptional! :wink:


Quote:
LDSTrue:
I guess "holy men of God" have yet to speak of your "hypostatic union" and that must be why I can't find it in the Bible.



The term, "Heavenly Mother" doesn't appear in the Bible, yet I would think it safe to say that you believe in a Heavenly Mother, right LDSTrue?

“safe to say”??? None of the members of the Godhead, our God Heavenly Father, our Lord and Savior God Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, including all of the Prophets and Apostles has ever had recorded in the Bible nor have they mentioned a Heavenly Mother so IMO it must not be “safe to say”...

Try as you will, you will not persuade me to talk about that concept. I have seen and witnessed what some say about our Father and His Son Jesus and it can be all be forgiven, however, I have also read about the unforgivable sin concerning blaspheme against Holy Ghost.

I do not want to know what the punishment is for blaspheme concerning a heavenly Mother concept and you can bet if She was mentioned any where in scripture someone would blaspheme Her. If I was God the Father or the Lord Jesus and some sinner blasphemed my wife or mother they would be instant ash and their spirits cast out without a proper trial at judgement as the proper judgement would be immediately administered: Instant annihilation!

If a Mother in Heaven is not mentioned by all those referred to above it must be for a good reason and I my common sense and discernment refuses to allow me to discuss the possibility of that concept. Some will, but I won't.

I will say this though, would you agree if I would apply your "concepts implied" the way you do to your implied LDS doctrine that this statement is then proof?

“when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:7)

The supposed LDS concept you “imply” could apply scripturally speaking. When was there a son without a mother scripturally speaking? It is obvious that were heavenly sons of God in Heaven so it must mean that there are ...

It is not spoken but could be “implied” and therefore anyone who would dare to disagree could rightly be accused and guilty of not possessing the basic “elementary understanding of scripture exegesis”. I just love your terminology and am trying to learn exactly how to apply it so please be patient with me.


Quote:
LDSTrue:
I will rely on the independent readers to determine whether or not my post is as you say "pathetic". Some may say; Hey, that is exactly what I was thinking!


LDSTrue
As an independent reader, I find your understanding of hypostasis, pathetic.

Hey, that’s not nice! I admitted that I lacked understanding and knowledge of the term “hypostasis”. If I lacked understanding, how could my understanding of “hypostasis”, which I admitted was none, be pathetic when it was nonexistent!

There was no understanding to support your "pathetic" when it arrived so your "pathetic" has fallen into oblivion. I hope you have a good supply because that “pathetic” fell through the black hole, is gone forever, and will not be coming back at/to you. :wink:

Besides Trout, you can hardly be considered “independent” reader.

I’m sorry, I know it is my fault. I should have made it clear that what I meant by “independent” was readers not directly associated with the administration of this web site. I guess I relied too heavily on “implied” when I should have clearly “expressed” my definition. See, you’ve helped already! I hope to continue to improve. :teeth:

I appreciate your attention to my posts and hope if they are not edifying for you at the very least you find them interesting.

LDSTrue

PS: SAY WHAT! THE DEANS LIST!!! :eek: Thank you!!!

The Deans List, Wow!!! I never thought it would be possible for me to be standing here at this podium on this occasion at this time with this award. Maybe in my dreams but not here and now. Is this real? Someone pinch me!!! Ouch! Not that hard Cru! Hey Deren, I only needed one pinch not ten! Those are real tears coming out of my eyes!

Thank you, I owe it all to Crusader, Deren and PaulT, for without them non of it would have come to mind. They forced me stretch, review and research and I want to share this award with them. Also, I want to thank all the little people behind the scenes who have worked tirelessly to produce this exceptional web site and have allowed me to post thereon. I don’t have time to mention all your names but I sincerely send you my appreciation and shared congratulations. You all are really the very best in the business!

What, they want me to finish. OK , last of all but not least of all I want to thank both my Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ for the inspiration and assistance they unselfishly contributed through the Holy Ghost and want them to know I recognize their hand in my success and will be forever grateful!!!

HEY YOU, EXIT STAGE RIGHT! Huh, Oh, OK! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! :blush:

[Trout]

LDSTrue:
Hey Trout:Thank you for noticing and responding to my post.

Thank you for answering mine.



LDSTrue:
Trout, I realize we are talking about public awareness of Biblical terms, common verses uncommon, and I get your point, can you discern mine?

Yes.

And I think you'd also agree that truth isn't determined by a majority opinion.



Trout:
There are concepts that are implied, and concepts that are expressed, any one with an elementary understanding of scripture exegesis realizes that.

LDSTrue:
Exegesis Synonyms = definition, clarification, construction, description, explanation etc.

That isn't what I meant when I used the term, "exegesis". When I speak of exegesis I am speaking strictly of the science of Biblical interpretation.



Trout:
Just because the word, "hypostasis" doesn't appear within the text of the Bible, doesn't mean that the concept of the hypostatic union isn't a Biblical concept.

LDSTrue:
I know, I was just searching and hoping to find it listed somewhere, anywhere in the Bible. You must agree and understand that when someone implies that their concept is biblical and that concept appears in the Bible that it is easier to accept that particular concept as being Biblical? Just a thought.

OK.



LDSTrue:
hypostatic union = "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21

Trout:
That is not the definition of hypostatic union.


Using precise theological language helps to accurately convey Biblical concepts, wouldn't you agree LDSTrue?



LDSTrue:
I guess "holy men of God" have yet to speak of your "hypostatic union" and that must be why I can't find it in the Bible.

Trout:
The term, "Heavenly Mother" doesn't appear in the Bible, yet I would think it safe to say that you believe in a Heavenly Mother, right LDSTrue?

LDSTrue:
I will say this though, would you agree if I would apply your "concepts implied" the way you do to your implied LDS doctrine that this statement is then proof?

I'm not asking for a prooftext, I'm not interested in discussing the concept of a Heavenly Mother. I was simply making a point: There are concepts that are expressed, and concepts that are implied.

You seem to have been telling Crusader that adhering to the concept of hypostatic union was foolish, because the term hypostatic union didn't appear in the Bible. I was demonstrating that you were guilty of the same behavior.



LDSTrue:
I will rely on the independent readers to determine whether or not my post is as you say "pathetic". Some may say; Hey, that is exactly what I was thinking!

Trout:
As an independent reader, I find your understanding of hypostasis, pathetic.

LDSTrue:
Hey, that’s not nice! I admitted that I lacked understanding and knowledge of the term “hypostasis”. If I lacked understanding, how could my understanding of “hypostasis”, which I admitted was none, be pathetic when it was nonexistent!

You implied that because the word, "hypostasis" didn't appear in the text of the Bible that therefore it was not a Biblical concept.

You said:



LDSTrue:
I guess "holy men of God" have yet to speak of your "hypostatic union" and that must be why I can't find it in the Bible.

Perhaps your reply to Crusader was not intended to convey your understanding of the term, "hypostatic union"?



LDSTrue:
Besides Trout, you can hardly be considered “independent” reader.

Perhaps not.



LDSTrue:
I’m sorry, I know it is my fault. I should have made it clear that what I meant by “independent” was readers not directly associated with the administration of this web site. I guess I relied too heavily on “implied” when I should have clearly “expressed” my definition. See, you’ve helped already! I hope to continue to improve. :teeth:

Clarity and precise language make for a productive dialogue.

[Krusader]

LDS True, you have totally avoided answering the question I posed. If, as the Mormon Church teaches, Christ "attained unto godhood" in pre-existence and then came to earth as the man, Christ - did he cease being a god? Did he continue being a god and take the additional nature of a man? Think it through, and please answer me.

[LDSTrue]

LDS True, you have totally avoided answering the question I posed. If, as the Mormon Church teaches, Christ "attained unto godhood" in pre-existence and then came to earth as the man, Christ - did he cease being a god? Did he continue being a god and take the additional nature of a man? Think it through, and please answer me.

Hi Cru:

Your question implies official Church doctrine and before I respond I would like to review your source for "If, as the Mormon Church teaches, Christ "attained unto godhood" in pre-existence".

It's not that I doubt your statement, it's just that I would like to be on the same page as you within the official Church documents.

You yourself know that there is a tremendous amount published regarding supposed official Church doctrine and it turns out to be someone’s opinion.

Please provide for me or tell me where I can find exactly what you are looking at that makes you beg the question.

Have you asked Jeth or Grat the same question? If so, I acquiesce to their statements and will only try to help you understand their specific comments regarding the matter if it's official Church doctrine.

However, IMO, if you will read again John 17 you will clearly be exposed to Jesus' actual words regarding the matter as recorded in scripture and potentially receive the insight that you are looking for.

Thank you for your efforts.

LDSTrue!

[Krusader]

Hi Cru:

Your question implies official Church doctrine and before I respond I would like to review your source for "If, as the Mormon Church teaches, Christ "attained unto godhood" in pre-existence".

It's not that I doubt your statement, it's just that I would like to be on the same page as you within the official Church documents.

You yourself know that there is a tremendous amount published regarding supposed official Church doctrine and it turns out to be someone’s opinion.

Please provide for me or tell me where I can find exactly what you are looking at that makes you beg the question.

Have you asked Jeth or Grat the same question? If so, I acquiesce to their statements and will only try to help you understand their specific comments regarding the matter if it's official Church doctrine.

However, IMO, if you will read again John 17 you will clearly be exposed to Jesus' actual words regarding the matter as recorded in scripture and potentially receive the insight that you are looking for.

Thank you for your efforts.

LDSTrue!

The teaching that Christ attained to godhood in pre-existence can be found in the proselytizing pamphlet "What the Mormons Think of Christ," (or "What the Mormons believe about Christ,") published by the LDS Church. It was printed under Kimball, I believe. Justjohanna verified that this was true in one of her posts, which you will find if you look.

[LDSTrue]

The teaching that Christ attained to godhood in pre-existence can be found in the proselytizing pamphlet "What the Mormons Think of Christ," (or "What the Mormons believe about Christ,") published by the LDS Church. It was printed under Kimball, I believe. Justjohanna verified that this was true in one of her posts, which you will find if you look.

Cru:

So you don’t have a copy or link for me? I would rather respond to an specific document inasmuch as you contend that it official Church doctrine.

You are certainly more familiar with this web site and must be able to locate a particular Justjohanna post easier than I so how about a little help.

If Justhohanna “verified that this was true in one of her posts” then what do are you intend to elicit from me?

Again, how about a little help. It is your contention that it is Church policy, so prove it.

You didn’t respond to my inquiry regarding Jeth or Grat. Have they addressed this subject on this Website previously?

LDSTrue!

[LDSTrue]

Bill The Cat:

Wow!!!! What a great post and Herculean effort on your part. Thank you!!!

I will try to respond in like manner shortly. My reaction to your post mirrored yours to mine when you were moved to exclaim:

“I know this was directed at Crusader, but there is a TON of wrong information here.”

I don’t know if you heard about one of my recent posts being selected for:

*****THE DEAN’S LIST!!!*****
One on this very thread was selected by Trout. What a surprise and honor!!!

It was the one that mentioned something about;


"...take two Book of Mormon tablets and call me in the morning"

It was totally unexpected and really blew me away, all things considered. I decided to celebrate a few days, bask in the moment and enjoy it to the fullest.

The award was a long time in coming and unfortunately may never happen again.

It has been difficult to focus on the task at hand and your Herculean post deserves an excellent response and my full attention.

From the looks of your most recent post you have provided a tremendous amount of material to work with so I had better get started.

The celebration was short lived and is over. I will begin working on my response tonight and hopefully post within a day or two. So many scriptures, so little time!

LDSTrue!

[Bill the Cat]

Bill The Cat:

Wow!!!! What a great post and Herculean effort on your part. Thank you!!!

I will try to respond in like manner shortly. My reaction to your post mirrored yours to mine when you were moved to exclaim:

“I know this was directed at Crusader, but there is a TON of wrong information here.”

I don’t know if you heard about one of my recent posts being selected for:

*****THE DEAN’S LIST!!!*****
One on this very thread was selected by Trout. What a surprise and honor!!!

It was the one that mentioned something about;


"...take two Book of Mormon tablets and call me in the morning"

It was totally unexpected and really blew me away, all things considered. I decided to celebrate a few days, bask in the moment and enjoy it to the fullest.

The award was a long time in coming and unfortunately may never happen again.

It has been difficult to focus on the task at hand and your Herculean post deserves an excellent response and my full attention.

From the looks of your most recent post you have provided a tremendous amount of material to work with so I had better get started.

The celebration was short lived and is over. I will begin working on my response tonight and hopefully post within a day or two. So many scriptures, so little time!

LDSTrue!
I look forward to it.

And congrats on the POTD pick. I thought it was clever as well.

[Krusader]

Cru:

So you don’t have a copy or link for me? I would rather respond to an specific document inasmuch as you contend that it official Church doctrine.

You are certainly more familiar with this web site and must be able to locate a particular Justjohanna post easier than I so how about a little help.

If Justhohanna “verified that this was true in one of her posts” then what do are you intend to elicit from me?

Again, how about a little help. It is your contention that it is Church policy, so prove it.

You didn’t respond to my inquiry regarding Jeth or Grat. Have they addressed this subject on this Website previously?

LDSTrue!

Well, LDS True, you seem to follow the pattern of most LDS apologists I've encountered which is to use the deceptive practice of pleading ignorance until they are confronted with their church's own documents. I've even had missionaries deny hearing of the King Follett discourse until I actually read it to them - when they all of a sudden have their memory restored!

After 5 minutes on the net I found the material you are questioning. "What the Mormons Think of Christ," (remember, buddy, that's what I told you it was titled) was written by your late Apostle, Bruce McConkie. On page 36 you will find:

"Christ the Word, the Firstborn, had of course attained unto the status of Godhood while yet in pre-existence." Page 36.

McConkie's book was condensed into a pamphlet used for proselytizing potential converts. In fact, I requested literature on the LDS Church directly from SLC, and this is what I was sent.

So, now that you have the reference, tell me this - did Christ divest Himself of His godhood, cease being a god, when He became a man? Or, did the nature of God and Man exist within the Christ while He walked the earth?

Repeat what you asked about Jeth and Grat again. Your long posts sometimes contain so much disinformation that it's sometimes only skimmed by me.

[LDSTrue]

To: BILL the Cat: (AKA BTC herein)

Hey BTC, thank you for the kind remarks regarding Trout’s pick!

I appreciate you patience and do fully intend to reply to your entire post but it is probably best if I do it in stages. There is a tremendous amount of information required and I shouldn't take up all that space at one time. (Read: I am working on it as fast as I can.)

This is the first stage of many and I thought I ought to post it for your review while I work on the other stages.


LDSTrue Quote:
Nice try, I almost forgot who I was talking to. All you need to know about me is that I know Joseph Smith was a true Prophet called in these latter days to usher in the dispensation of the fullness of times.



And I know Joseph Smith was a dreadful liar.


BTC, does your statement conger up a Biblical picture of the past in you as it did with me?

That is exactly what satan had them say about Jesus before they crucified Him. In fact, that is what satan had them say about all the martyred Prophets and Apostles throughout the ages. Satan convinced them all that the true Prophets and Apostles were liars and fabricators. Satan celebrated his successes as they were crucified, stoned, beheaded, one after another and now in our day he has them shot.

Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his own blood just as all the martyred Prophets and Apostles did before his time. Joseph Smith now rests in very good company wouldn’t you say? He is safe now with Father, Jesus, Peter, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Stephen, etc. Joseph Smith is as great a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator as has ever walked the Earth save Jesus. Joseph Smith was martyred right along with all the best of them for the cause of Jesus and His Church.

How does that make you feel when I praise and compare Joseph Smith’s martyrdom with that of Jesus and His Apostles? Angry? Mad? Disgusted? Insulted? Outraged? Are you, Cru, Deren, PaulT and the other anti’s fuming, full of anger because I dare mention Jesus and Joseph Smith in the same breath.

Does my likening the death of Jesus and Joseph Smith result in injurious thoughts and the urge to utter base remarks? Yes, good because that is exactly where I want your emotions to be so I can teach you and the others a simple lesson. I agree that this may not seem like the time to assume you are teachable, however, please bear with me for 5 minutes and let us see exactly what I am able to reveal to you in your angry emotional state.

Where do you think your anger comes from when I praise Jesus and Joseph Smith in the same breath, satan? or the Holy Ghost? Would you agree that satan stirs up the hearts of men to anger? Anger is certainly not a spiritual gift from the Holy Ghost nor does it come down from Heaven. You must then agree that anger is a product of satan and he is the one stirring up the hearts of man to anger, which then leads to hate, which then leads to violence, which then lead to murder and the martyrdom of Jesus, the Prophets and Apostles, and finally the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Would you agree that the Jews who crucified Jesus were first convinced that Jesus was a “dreadful liar” and were angry with Him. Their anger grew from within over time to outrage and then to the point of violence when they all chimed in and chanted - CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!!!

They, in their anger and outrage, took our Savior and hung Him on the cross due to their unwarranted hate towards him, a totally undeserving and innocent man performing miracles before their very eyes. Their example shows how deep and strong satan can have the current of anger, hate and rage flow within a man, don’t you agree?

I quote: “64…Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of Heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.” (Matt. 26:64-66)

Who do you think celebrated their pronouncement on Jesus, our Father, the Holy Ghost, or satan? Did Heaven or Hell celebrate their decision? If they had not allowed themselves to be stirred up in anger in the first place by assuming Jesus was a “dreadful liar” it would have never gone to the cross. Don’t you agree?

Are you still with me? Please stay focused as now I am going help you understand exactly how all this ties into Joseph Smith and his martyrdom.

First, I have to ask you an extremely important question. Your answer here provides a foundation.

Do you believe there is really a satan and do you believe he is alive and active on the earth today?

Yes, Good, I thought so. It was an assumption I thought was safe to make considering your Christian beliefs. Now, if you do in fact believe there is a satan what do you think could be his greatest fear? The TRUTH right! Wait, what did you say, Eternal Damnation, oh, ok, ok, OK! Then what do you think Satan’s second greatest fear is, THE TRUTH, right?! Correctamundo Johnny! He hides behind his lies, for if the truth were known he would be out in the open and out of business right?

Therefore, now that we have established that satan fears the truth then I need to ask you a very, very important second question. Your correct answer here will allow us to build on the foundation.

Is satan divided? Are satan and his followers working against one another or do you imagine that they try to work harmoniously with each other? Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing? I will assume you will agree that their efforts are coordinated right?

If you were satan, wouldn’t you get really upset if you spent years and years grooming your false prophet and then some idiot devils influenced a bunch red neck halfwits to paint their faces black, lock and load, then storm the jail, go upstairs to the second floor and shoot your false prophet dead? What good is he to you dead now? I mean, if you were satan with a long-range goals and plans for your false prophet, wouldn’t you be upset just a little.

All that time and effort wasted. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t want to be in their hooves when the big man, satan himself, is appraised of their mistake. They are the ones you probably see in drawings who are roasting on the spit and consumed in the flames; you know, the dumb ones who are guilty of murdering the apprentices and journeymen of the devil by mistake. I’m certain that has not happened recently as they have proven to be communicating and on target since Jesus.

BTC, can you show me where it is recorded or common knowledge that satan works against himself? IMO the exact opposite is quite apparent, as he wiped out the entire foundation of the Church in a few short years. I can see where the true Apostles were martyred, however, can you show me scripturally where the false prophets were harmed in any way? (2Pet.2:1) What about the wolves that entered in, where is their demise recorded? (Acts 2:29) Where is it recorded that satan had his false Christ’s crucified (Matt. 24:5) It appears there was a “hands off” my apprentices and journeymen policy instituted, noised about and put into effect by the big man himself.

Are you getting close to perceiving the point? If satan expended the time and resources to raise up false Christ’s, false prophets and false apostles and then had them murdered what would be the point of all that wasted effort. Satan is not known for raising up and then murdering his own counterfeit church leaders and imposters posing as deciples who are actually “grievous wolves” now is he. It is apparent that they lived long and fruitful lives of corruption and deceit.

I offer these three scripture quotes as proof satan is not divided nor are his devils confused as to exactly who they should target and have the mob murder:

1. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? (Matt 12:26)

2. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. (Mark 3:26)

3. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? …” (Luke 11:18)

I have gone into this matter quite extensively in the hopes that you might perceive and realize exactly how reckless it is to profane the name of Joseph Smith. Satan has you and others angrily slandering and defaming Joseph Smith repeatedly. What does that tell you about what you are actually doing considering the above? All those who slandered and profaned the original Apostles have certainly lived to regret it as they are cooling their heals in a very thirsty place by now I’ll bet.

Do you understand now just who is it exactly that would stir up anger in your heart for a true Prophet. I hope that your anger has been diffused sufficient to allow understanding a place within. Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and was in fact called to be the Prophet to open the dispensation of fullness of time in these latter days by both God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. If you do not believe me, believe that satan knows whom he was and what he was called to do. Believe satan stirred up hate and anger in the hearts of those murderers that martyred Joseph Smith. WHY???

If Joseph Smith was the false prophet and phony advocate for Christ all you anti’s believe him to be satan would have stayed the angry mob, had them holster their weapons, wash the black off their faces, mount their trusty steeds and go back home. However, because Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, satan saw to it that he was martyred at a young age. If Joseph Smith was the big phony all you anti’s believe him to be satan would have seen to it that he lived to be a hundred years old.

Do you see your mistake now? See what you can do with a secure and solid foundation built upon the TRUTH!!!

BTC, I would not say it and go to all this trouble for you if I did not know it to be true.

I'll be back with more soon. Again thank you for your ...

LDSTrue!

[Bill the Cat]

To: BILL the Cat: (AKA BTC herein)

Thanks for taking the time to post this much so far. I will do my best to interact with your post without getting too much info or going off topic.


Hey BTC, thank you for the kind remarks regarding Trout’s pick!

Well deserved, as I said before. Our POTDs reward those posts we feel are funny, clever, informative, or just plain awesome. We try to reward without bias, as your post being picked reflects.


I appreciate you patience and do fully intend to reply to your entire post but it is probably best if I do it in stages. There is a tremendous amount of information required and I shouldn't take up all that space at one time. (Read: I am working on it as fast as I can.)

Understood. And thanks for this much. :thumb:


This is the first stage of many and I thought I ought to post it for your review while I work on the other stages.




And I know Joseph Smith was a dreadful liar.


BTC, does your statement conger up a Biblical picture of the past in you as it did with me?


No, sorry. It conjurs up a portrait of the mid 1800's when Joseph Smith lived.


That is exactly what satan had them say about Jesus before they crucified Him. In fact, that is what satan had them say about all the martyred Prophets and Apostles throughout the ages. Satan convinced them all that the true Prophets and Apostles were liars and fabricators. Satan celebrated his successes as they were crucified, stoned, beheaded, one after another and now in our day he has them shot.

And the real Apostles called out those who were leading others astray, like Hymenaeus. Paul even said Hym was shipwrecking others' faith. Joseph led so many astray from the true faith handed down from the Apostles, that he is on par with Hymenaeus.


Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his own blood just as all the martyred Prophets and Apostles did before his time.

Show me one Martyr who killed 2 men in the process of his martyrdom. There would have been more killed by Joseph had his six shooter fired all six bullets. His testimony was sealed with his and two other men's blood, so there is no comparison.


Joseph Smith now rests in very good company wouldn’t you say?

Unfortunately for him, yes. Unless he repented before he died and gave his heart to the true Jesus Christ, he's in the company of the rich man from the parable of Lazarus.


He is safe now with Father, Jesus, Peter, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Stephen, etc.

And your proof is? Have you seen him there?


Joseph Smith is as great a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator as has ever walked the Earth save Jesus.

:ahem: if you say so. but I kindly disagree. There have been men of FAR greater renown to the Church than Joseph Smith. Ireneaus, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, those Paul commends in his letters, and those the Lord commends in the letters to the churches in Revelation.


Joseph Smith was martyred right along with all the best of them for the cause of Jesus and His Church.

Correction, Joseph was murdered for the cause of his church, not His (notice the lack of the capital letter).


How does that make you feel when I praise and compare Joseph Smith’s martyrdom with that of Jesus and His Apostles? Angry? Mad? Disgusted? Insulted? Outraged?

Heartbroken. But hopeful that you may one day embrace the true light. I'm sure it did Paul no joy to hand Hymenaeus over to Satan, but it was necessary. Paul prayed for the unsaved and deceived often.



Are you, Cru, Deren, PaulT and the other anti’s fuming, full of anger because I dare mention Jesus and Joseph Smith in the same breath.

Nah, anger is not necessary at this point. And it would not be anger, but righteous indignation.


Does my likening the death of Jesus and Joseph Smith result in injurious thoughts and the urge to utter base remarks?

No, it is just a factual error that needs correcting. Jesus killed no one on the way to the cross, Joseph killed 2 men in anger.



Yes, good because that is exactly where I want your emotions to be so I can teach you and the others a simple lesson. I agree that this may not seem like the time to assume you are teachable, however, please bear with me for 5 minutes and let us see exactly what I am able to reveal to you in your angry emotional state.

OK, even though I am quite calm, I'll play along :yipee:



Where do you think your anger comes from when I praise Jesus and Joseph Smith in the same breath, satan? or the Holy Ghost?

Assuming I were angry, I'll return the question. Where did Jesus' anger come from when he fashioned a whip and flogged the money changers? Where did his verbal bashing come from when he called the Pharisees whitewashed tombs and broods of vipers and children of Satan?


Would you agree that satan stirs up the hearts of men to anger?

Sure, but then again, so cant he Holy Spirit, as righteous indignation


Anger is certainly not a spiritual gift from the Holy Ghost nor does it come down from Heaven.

Really? I disagree.
Numbers 32:13
" So the LORD'S anger burned against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until the entire generation of those who had done evil in the sight of the LORD was destroyed.



You must then agree that anger is a product of satan and he is the one stirring up the hearts of man to anger, which then leads to hate, which then leads to violence, which then lead to murder and the martyrdom of Jesus, the Prophets and Apostles, and finally the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Anger is not always a product of Satan. Being slow to anger is a quality of Godliness
Proverbs 14:29
He who is slow to anger has great understanding,But he who is quick-tempered exalts folly.


Notice it does not say that it is impossible to anger. Love is the same.
1 Cor 13
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.


Again, notice it does not say it does not anger. God can be angry, love can be angry, just like man can be angry. Anger does not always come from the Devil.


Would you agree that the Jews who crucified Jesus were first convinced that Jesus was a “dreadful liar” and were angry with Him. Their anger grew from within over time to outrage and then to the point of violence when they all chimed in and chanted - CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!!!

And Jesus replied, not My will, but Thy will be done. He didn't kill anyone on the Villa Delorosa. Joseph stirred to anger at his brother's death and killed in return. Now, if you want to abandon your "anger is of the devil" then Joseph's killing those men MAY be explained by that, but the rest of your argument falls apart.



They, in their anger and outrage, took our Savior and hung Him on the cross due to their unwarranted hate towards him, a totally undeserving and innocent man performing miracles before their very eyes. Their example shows how deep and strong satan can have the current of anger, hate and rage flow within a man, don’t you agree?

Joseph in his anger at the murder of his brother killed two men.
"When Hyrum fell, Joseph exclaimed, "Oh dear, brother Hyrum!" and opening the door a few inches he discharged his six shooter in the stairway (as stated before), two or three barrels of which missed fire." (History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.34, p.618)


I quote: “64…Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of Heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.” (Matt. 26:64-66)


Who do you think celebrated their pronouncement on Jesus, our Father, the Holy Ghost, or satan?

Well, considering that it was in the Plan from the get go, I don't think the Father was too concerned at the time.


Did Heaven or Hell celebrate their decision?

both.


If they had not allowed themselves to be stirred up in anger in the first place by assuming Jesus was a “dreadful liar” it would have never gone to the cross. Don’t you agree?

Sure it would. Or do you think that man could have changed the plan of God, especially the plan of redemption. Remember "I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again"



Are you still with me? Please stay focused as now I am going help you understand exactly how all this ties into Joseph Smith and his martyrdom.


Still here and cool as a cuke.


First, I have to ask you an extremely important question. Your answer here provides a foundation.

Do you believe there is really a satan and do you believe he is alive and active on the earth today?

Yes and Yes.


Yes, Good, I thought so. It was an assumption I thought was safe to make considering your Christian beliefs. Now, if you do in fact believe there is a satan what do you think could be his greatest fear?

Well, the Bible is silent on whether or not Satan fears anything, so I can't really say. He obviously didn't fear being in the presence of God when he got to tempt Job. He didn't fear the Scriptures, because he used them (out of context though). He didn't fear Jesus because he tempted Him. He didn't fear the Disciples, because he had an agent among them. Get the point?


The TRUTH right! Wait, what did you say, Eternal Damnation, oh, ok, ok, OK! Then what do you think Satan’s second greatest fear is, THE TRUTH, right?! Correctamundo Johnny! He hides behind his lies, for if the truth were known he would be out in the open and out of business right?

Wow, what a stretch. The only thing that the Bible says about Satan and the truth is that the truth does not reside in him. He hides behind lies because that's his nature. He uses deception because that's all he has left.



Therefore, now that we have established that satan fears the truth then I need to ask you a very, very important second question. Your correct answer here will allow us to build on the foundation.

You established it, and I dispute it.



Is satan divided? Are satan and his followers working against one another or do you imagine that they try to work harmoniously with each other?

Oh, they are divided against each other. They will kill to get to the top.


Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing? I will assume you will agree that their efforts are coordinated right?

Against the Church, yes. Against each other, no.


If you were satan, wouldn’t you get really upset if you spent years and years grooming your false prophet and then some idiot devils influenced a bunch red neck halfwits to paint their faces black, lock and load, then storm the jail, go upstairs to the second floor and shoot your false prophet dead?

Did the Devil personally groom Joseph? No. His free will added to a bit of coercion by the forces of darkness groomed him.


What good is he to you dead now? I mean, if you were satan with a long-range goals and plans for your false prophet, wouldn’t you be upset just a little.

No. He is viewed as a martyr by the deceived. What a great plan! Joseph was slipping in popularity, making enemies everywhere. Maybe Satan changed his plans and made a martyr out of Joseph. Clever devil.


All that time and effort wasted. I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t want to be in their hooves when the big man, satan himself, is appraised of their mistake. They are the ones you probably see in drawings who are roasting on the spit and consumed in the flames; you know, the dumb ones who are guilty of murdering the apprentices and journeymen of the devil by mistake. I’m certain that has not happened recently as they have proven to be communicating and on target since Jesus.

What better way to marshall the forces and solidify Joseph as a "true" prophet than to have him murdered. Good work thou vile but faithful servants. Way to stir up the crowd.


BTC, can you show me where it is recorded or common knowledge that satan works against himself?

Shall I give you a history lesson? Was God with Brutus and Cassius or Julius Caresar? Was he with the Chineese or the Monguls? One evil kills another evil all the time.



IMO the exact opposite is quite apparent, as he wiped out the entire foundation of the Church in a few short years.

That is a total falsehood. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. The foundation of the Church is the declaration that Jesus Christ is Lord. That message has never been wiped out.



I can see where the true Apostles were martyred, however, can you show me scripturally where the false prophets were harmed in any way? (2Pet.2:1)

Jer 29

21 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning Ahab the son of Kolaiah and concerning Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, who are prophesying to you falsely in My name, 'Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will slay them before your eyes.

22 'Because of them a curse will be used by all the exiles from Judah who are in Babylon, saying, "May the LORD make you like Zedekiah and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire,





What about the wolves that entered in, where is their demise recorded? (Acts 2:29) Where is it recorded that satan had his false Christ’s crucified (Matt. 24:5) It appears there was a “hands off” my apprentices and journeymen policy instituted, noised about and put into effect by the big man himself.

Again, your base assumption is that Satan stirred the crowd that killed Joseph. God can use wicked men, just as above He used Nebbuchadnezzar to roast the false prophets.


Are you getting close to perceiving the point? If satan expended the time and resources to raise up false Christ’s, false prophets and false apostles and then had them murdered what would be the point of all that wasted effort. Satan is not known for raising up and then murdering his own counterfeit church leaders and imposters posing as deciples who are actually “grievous wolves” now is he. It is apparent that they lived long and fruitful lives of corruption and deceit.

There is more than one way to look at this. You see Joseph as a prophet, I do not. I understand that you think he was righteous and the crowd was evil. I do not think he was righteous. The crowd may have been driven to make Joseph even bigger in the eyes of the Mormons, or God may have used the wicked crowd to destroy a false prophet the way he did with Nebby.


I offer these three scripture quotes as proof satan is not divided nor are his devils confused as to exactly who they should target and have the mob murder:

1. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? (Matt 12:26)

2. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. (Mark 3:26)

3. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? …” (Luke 11:18)



That refers to casting out demons and releasing their control on men. Killing Joseph would have strengthened his hold on people, not released his control over them, evidenced by the continuance of the church he started.


I have gone into this matter quite extensively in the hopes that you might perceive and realize exactly how reckless it is to profane the name of Joseph Smith.

I do not profane his name any more than he profaned God's name. Just as Jesus and Paul rebuked false teachings, I rebuke Joseph Smith's false teachings. It is not reckless, but commanded.



Satan has you and others angrily slandering and defaming Joseph Smith repeatedly.

Joseph did a fine job of slandering his own name, and you putting him on par with the Apostles is just laughable. God commands us to expose error, adn just as Paul exposed Hymenaeus, we expose Joseph. Was Paul a slanderer?


What does that tell you about what you are actually doing considering the above?

Following the lead of my Savior and an Apostle of the Church. Expose false teachings so others may not be led astray into shipwreck.



All those who slandered and profaned the original Apostles have certainly lived to regret it as they are cooling their heals in a very thirsty place by now I’ll bet.

Probably so, although not if they repented.


Do you understand now just who is it exactly that would stir up anger in your heart for a true Prophet.

If I were angry at a true prophet, then yes, I would be in error. Joseph Smith is not a true prophet, so I am doing the will of my Father.



I hope that your anger has been diffused sufficient to allow understanding a place within.

I was never angry to start with. Slow to wrath and all...:teeth:



Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and was in fact called to be the Prophet to open the dispensation of fullness of time in these latter days by both God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.

The dispensation of the fullness of times is not the "restored church". Dispensations are marked by what their beginning is, not their end. The verse, again taken out of context, is Ephesians 10:1

Eph 10
1 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:


The gathering together all things BEGINS the dispensation of the fullness of time, which happens when Jesus returns:

Mar 13
26 "Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN CLOUDS with great power and glory.

27 "And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven.




If you do not believe me, believe that satan knows whom he was and what he was called to do. Believe satan stirred up hate and anger in the hearts of those murderers that martyred Joseph Smith. WHY???

Prove it was Satan that stirred them up, and not God, as He did with Nebby.



If Joseph Smith was the false prophet and phony advocate for Christ all you anti’s believe him to be satan would have stayed the angry mob, had them holster their weapons, wash the black off their faces, mount their trusty steeds and go back home.

And watch Joseph lose MORE followers? I don't think so.



However, because Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, satan saw to it that he was martyred at a young age. If Joseph Smith was the big phony all you anti’s believe him to be satan would have seen to it that he lived to be a hundred years old.

answered above.


Do you see your mistake now? See what you can do with a secure and solid foundation built upon the TRUTH!!!

See what you can do with misquotes, out of context verses, and a clever man?


BTC, I would not say it and go to all this trouble for you if I did not know it to be true.

I understand, and I would not go to the trouble if I didn't know it as false.

:btc3:

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=LDSTrue]

Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his own blood
.



If you were satan, wouldn’t you get really upset if you spent years and years grooming your false prophet and then some idiot devils influenced a bunch red neck halfwits to paint their faces black, lock and load, then storm the jail, go upstairs to the second floor and shoot your false prophet dead? What good is he to you dead now? I mean, if you were satan with a long-range goals and plans for your false prophet, wouldn’t you be upset just a little.

(QUOTE=LDStrue)

Response:


Joseph Smith took flight with his brother Hiram and had to be hauled back into town by his wife, Emma, to face the music of the charges against him. He was guilty of the charges against him - not innocent as are Christian martyrs. The "testimony" he sealed was that he was guilty of a variety of crimes, and blasphemy against the Son of God:

Smith, exactly one month after proclaiming himself greater than Jesus Christ, was killed in a shoot out in Carthage jail. That's right, he shot two men before trying to jump from the window and being shot himself.

Read History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-09. "I have more to boast of than any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I." - words of Joseph Smith

That's one of the most disgusting statements by any cult leader that I can think of. What does the Scripture say about this type of arrogrant, prideful spirit?

Prov. 16:18 - Pride goeth before destruction.

And, so were the words of the Bible fulfilled - Smith's own pride brought about his destruction. Satan can kill nobody - but God will take action when He so chooses. Who knows what other insane beliefs Smith would have attempted to foist on his followers. The man was growing more and more delusional as the days went on.

You cannot spit in God's face and expect nothing to happen.

[LDSTrue]

TO: BILL the Cat:

Hey BtC:

WOW!!! Thank you!!! Another huge effort from and by you.

Do you do this full time or what???

I'm halfway through part b of post #1 with parts c, d, e, and f to finish and you come in finished with post #2. Are you deliberately trying to swamp me? It’s working!!!

I'm going hire more help so I can devote more company time to my personal endeavors.

Don't you work for a living or are you just naturally gifted? With my luck, it's the latter I assume. :wink:

I'm stuck hear running a business and all this business stuff is interfering with my opportunities to post.

I beg your patience as I am anxious to, and will respond.

Give me a break though, take a breath! Go play with your kids, dog, wife. Visit relatives, take the day off and go golfing or fishing or Disneyland.

It could help if you pondered and thought about each paragraph in my responses an hour or two instead of a minute or two. It could be worth it. Help a guy out, please slow down, this is serious stuff and deserves your full attention and concentration for at least a 24 hour day!

You should be made to study my post for as least as long as it takes me to compile it. Who knows, you may have missed something important and overlooked a hidden clue buried deep within, something really important.

Naturally, I would prefer that you spend more time absorbing the info in my post than responding to it. You must have a high absorption rate. :teeth:

Thanks, repeatedly!!!

LDSTrue!

PS: I realize that I have set myself up for a really cruel and rude response to this post Crusader, I just hope you stifle the urge.Try and be nice!

[Krusader]

TO: BILL the Cat:

Hey BtC:

WOW!!! Thank you!!! Another huge effort from and by you.

Do you do this full time or what???

I'm halfway through part b of post #1 with parts c, d, e, and f to finish and you come in finished with post #2. Are you deliberately trying to swamp me? It’s working!!!

I'm going hire more help so I can devote more company time to my personal endeavors.

Don't you work for a living or are you just naturally gifted? With my luck, it's the latter I assume. :wink:

I'm stuck hear running a business and all this business stuff is interfering with my opportunities to post.

I beg your patience as I am anxious to, and will respond.

Give me a break though, take a breath! Go play with your kids, dog, wife. Visit relatives, take the day off and go golfing or fishing or Disneyland.

It could help if you pondered and thought about each paragraph in my responses an hour or two instead of a minute or two. It could be worth it. Help a guy out, please slow down, this is serious stuff and deserves your full attention and concentration for at least a 24 hour day!

You should be made to study my post for as least as long as it takes me to compile it. Who knows, you may have missed something important and overlooked a hidden clue buried deep within, something really important.

Naturally, I would prefer that you spend more time absorbing the info in my post than responding to it. You must have a high absorption rate. :teeth:

Thanks, repeatedly!!!

LDSTrue!

PS: I realize that I have set myself up for a really cruel and rude response to this post Crusader, I just hope you stifle the urge.Try and be nice!

Your problem is that you are unable to accept historical and objective evidence, but have to resort to calling it rudeness. Furthermore, you have failed to answer my question about your position on the hypostatic union now that I have given you the reference demonstrating the Mormon teaching of Christ's attainment of godhood in pre-existence. You made such a big deal about where the reference could be found, and when I told you where it could be found, you ignored it. Could it be that you have no answer? Could it be that the mockery you made of the Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union has come back to snap you in the face?

[LDSTrue]

Crusader: Your problem is that you are unable to accept historical and objective evidence, but have to resort to calling it rudeness.

It must be your bright and cheery attitude I am overlooking.


Crusader: Furthermore, you have failed to answer my question about your position on the hypostatic union now that I have given you the reference demonstrating the Mormon teaching of Christ's attainment of godhood in pre-existence. You made such a big deal about where the reference could be found, and when I told you where it could be found, you ignored it.

It must be your bright and cheery attitude I am avoiding.


Crusader: Could it be that you have no answer?

No. You should know better than that by now. It just that your are no fun to talk to. With you its all contention or nothing and that is not fun to look forward to. Dee Dee said this is a place for fun so let go and have a little. You’ll survive just fine. A little levity is good for the soul and will help erase all those frown lines.


Crusader: Could it be that the mockery you made

I do not admit to mocking or “mockery” as you put it. I simply related that I could not find it anywhere in the Bible in sort of an innocent story form.


Crusader: Could it be that the mockery you made of the Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union has come back to snap you in the face?

No. You know I’m under a lot of pressure from Bill the Cat and you know how demanding he can be.

Besides, you have yet to be nice to me once. You are the only snap in the face I feel every time you address me in your posts and who needs a steady diet of snaps.

Hey, I just had a scary thought, what if you have been being nice to me this whole time and your going to revert back to your not so nice self once you have disarmed me with your charm. SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!

LIGHTEN UP A LITTLE no LIGHTEN UP A LOT!!! The Church is still true.

LDSTrue!

[LDSTrue]

Quote:
LDSTrue: I know he sealed his testimony with his blood


Bill the Cat: And killed 2 others in the process with a smuggled gun. Great testimony.

“2 others”???? “”OTHERS”” You make it sound as if those cowards were innocent children playing in their back yards with a Frisbee. Were those murderers killed playing with their toys or while they were shooting through a closed door at innocent men who’s only crime was wanting to enjoy the freedom of religion granted to all in the governing Constitution.

And what was his offence: From the American Prophet I quote:

Joseph explained his sense of mission in 1844: "I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world." That change embraced what he considered was a calling from God to restore the true church, translate records from ancient plates and publish them as new scripture called the Book of Mormon, organize a lay priesthood, build holy temples, and establish "the kingdom of God on earth." Thousands from the New England states, Canada, the East Coast, and the British Isles flocked to the message of Jesus Christ, a restoration of His gospel, and the coming Millennium. Such an orientation challenged religious pluralism and demonstrated people's dissatisfaction with an increasingly sectarian society.

It sounds like freedom of religion should apply and be granted here and not death by a cowardly mob!!!

The NOT so innocent “2 others” were painted faced cowards unlawfully and shamefully conspiring to murder innocent men. It could have easily been those “2 others” that fired through the door and murdered Joseph’s’ brother Hyrum before Joseph put to good use the “smuggled gun”. They got what they deserved for their murderous acts. They died in their sins unrepentant of murdering innocent men and have been very thirsty since.


Bill the Cat: “Great testimony”

Do you mean to imply that had Joseph Smith gone down without firing a shot that you would be a Mormon today? It appears that in your opinion, if one defends himself against cowards all he has said and done is worthless and corrupt and you want nothing to do with them. Am I reading your “Great testimony” comment correctly?

I guess the real testimony is the way the Mormon community handled the senseless murder of Joseph Smith. No mobs or reprisals, no one seeking revenge. If you are looking for a testimony of some sort, look it up.

Why would one of Joseph Smiths friends smuggle him in a gun you say. I mean after all, he was in jail with law abiding officers in charge wasn’t he. Why be worried you say?

From the American Prophet I quote:

“When he arrived, the Carthage Greys—the local militia—unruly and decidedly anti-Mormon, were commissioned to keep the peace. “In the days that followed, Joseph was paraded before the troops, brought before a judge, and then locked in Carthage Jail. Eight of his friends elected to stay with him. On June 27, a guard at the jail boasted to one of Joseph's companions of the imminent end of the prized prisoner: "We have had too much trouble to bring Old Joe here to let him ever escape alive, and unless you want to die with him you had better leave before sundown . . . and you'll see that I can prophesy better than Old Joe."

That quote is from the guard at the door. Get real BtC, If you or I were in that same situation we both would have seen to it that we were armed to the teeth and you know it!

How long would you stand there after your Brother is shot dead in front of your face and do nothing? How long would you wait to draw and fire after your wife or one of your children or a close family member is shot to death in front of your face???

The first bullets fired in that jail that day hit Hyrum Smith in the face killing him instantly and were fired through a closed door. Anything after that was self-defense and wholly justifiable in any court in the land.

How could you expect Joseph to stand and watch while his loved ones and friends are massacred by those cowards. What are you thinking??? You wouldn’t tolerate it any more than he did.

We are all only human after all and have been blessed with certain protective and self defense reactions that automatically kick in when confronted with danger and the enemy. Especially when it is self-defense and in defense of loved ones murdered right in front of you.

Both you and Crusader sound as if you have compassion for and are on the side of the painted faced coward assassins who are there murdering innocent men. Their only crime was their religious beliefs and I’m certain “FREEDOM OF RELIGION” was intended to apply to Mormons as well. It was not a new concept then and was specifically written in The Constitution of The United States of America and was guaranteed to EVERY U.S. citizen which included every Mormon in that bullet riddled room.

There should not be a shred of defense spoken for their cowardly murderous actions and yet it sounds as if both you and Crusader would have started and managed their defense fund. I guess you both are the examples of the case in point; until it happens to you or one of your innocent loved ones the concept of self preservation, defense and justice is not that justified, essential or significant.

Did the crime Joseph Smith was to have committed warrant death. Was it common for the death sentence to be carried without a judge or jury of his peers. Show me the law on the books at that time that permitted a cowardly mob to carry out the; “lets form a mob to murder you and your friends and family over religious differences” death sentence.

It is the latter days and the Biblical destruction and chaos has just begun. God forbid a mob with faces painted black or any color for that matter comes for you or your family and loved ones. If they come shooting through your door hopefully you will have the sense to fire back and protect your loved ones. How sad it would be to have your loved ones shot to death through the door and here you are standing there with a revolver and do nothing. Every Prophet and Apostle to ever walk the Earth was human, inherited the natural human trait of self-protection, which is a natural and understandable reaction.

You remember when the Apostle Peter drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of the Roman guards. There would have been more than one ear on the ground if Peter had been armed with more than a sword at the time.

The martyrdom of the Prophet neither directly proves nor disproves his vision of or his calling from our Father and Jesus. It is what he established, brought forth, revealed and restored that is proof positive and proof enough.

The martyrdom of Joseph Smith was his signature to the truthfulness of his calling from God and the wise would not hold his tragic death up for, nor participate in, ridicule.

They martyred an innocent man who's only crime was being called a Prophet and fulfilling that calling for and in behalf of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

He died an innocent man practicing his right to freedom of religion.

LDSTrue!

[Trout]

. . . dispensation . . .

Trout watches as the cat prepares to pounce on it's un-suspecting prey :cat:

Nice work Bill, and don't think I missed the fact that you snuck some Dispyism in there . . . Silly Cat:jack:

[LDSTrue]

Trout watches as the cat prepares to pounce on it's un-suspecting prey :cat:

Nice work Bill, and don't think I missed the fact that you snuck some Dispyism in there . . . Silly Cat:jack:

Hey Trout:

Thank you for the warning! I’ll stay on the lookout for a sneak attack.

I will return the favor and provide BtC advance a warning.

I have the biggest, meanest, fiercest, dog in town. When my dog comes around they all stand back and whisper in unison, LET THE BIG DOG EAT!!!

(Not really, Daisy is Bichon Frise that thinks she is a Great Dane. She loves to torment cats, it is her favorite pastime)

Here kitty, kitty, kitty, kitty.

LDSTrue.

PS: How about sharing your contact at Pixar. I want access to those really neat smileys.

I would be able to add a little humor to my posts like all you administrators if you would be willing to share your source. Yeah, and show Crusader where to get them as well so she can have some fun and enjoy herself while creating amusing posts for us all.

[Trout]

LDSTrue,

I sent you a PM regarding smilies, you're right they're pretty cool.

Here's my favorite . . . :hillary:

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

[LDSTrue]

LDSTrue,

I sent you a PM regarding smilies, you're right they're pretty cool.

Here's my favorite . . . :hillary:

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Hey Trout:

Warn me will you!!! That picture is going to give me nightmares now.

Halloween is more than a month away and here you are scaring the ... out of me.

Come to think of it, that maks will probably sell a million and scare kids out of their wits all over the Nation.

Thank you for the info. I will put it to good use. Did you copy Crusader?

You're the best!!!

LDSTrue!

[LDSTrue]

Hey BtC:

This is part B of Post 1 I think. I must admit I'm losing track.

Quote:
LDSTrue: Anger is certainly not a spiritual gift from the Holy Ghost nor does it come down from Heaven.


BtC: Really? I disagree.

Quote:
LDSTrue:Would you agree that satan stirs up the hearts of men to anger?


BtC: Sure, but then again, so can the Holy Spirit, as righteous indignation


BtC: Anger is not always a product of Satan. Being slow to anger is a quality of Godliness

BTC, ARE YOU SERIOUS??? “You’re pullin my chain”, “rattleing my cage”, “messin with my mind man”. You put satan’s anger and Heavely inspired righteous indignation in the same sentence and consider them to be equal, justifiable and on par!!!

So you want to play rough eh pilgrim!( Trout, that dosen’t sound right, did I quote that verbatium? Your Avatar indicates you might know.)

You apparently haven’t clearly understood nor are you considering the possibility of the differences between, and sources of, ligitimite Heavenly righteous indignation and evil true anger disguised as counterfeit righteous indignation. Your missconseption has been echoed on this site and proven to be very prevelent in some post's (Are your ears itching Crusader?).

It appears that you have mistakenly forgottten to take into consideration the fact that Jesus was a perfect man., a God on Earth. Any emotion Jesus would have experience or demonstraited would be righteous and not even close to the counterfeit evil(aka satan) sourced.

You imply that there is only one source of indignation and ignore the fact or possibility that satan can influence one to think his indigantion is righteous when in fact it is sprouting from an evil seed. God does not have evil men carry out his righteous justice. If God gets angry and wants to vent His anger he has demonstraited that He is quite capable of the distruction all by Himself.

If God uses man to carry out His righteous indignation he has proven time and time again that He will use rightous men to meet out His anger and has yet to use, nor is it recorded that He will imploy; faces painted black, six gun packing, attempting identity consealment, halfwit red neck devil possessed morons to carry out His vengence. I know this may sound foreign to you but those cowards were not rightious nor did they have rightious intent nor were they;


“On A Mission From God”.

And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? (Matt. 15:16)

Rember those seemingly pious Pharisees and Sadducess had the original Law of Moses in their back pocket. In their view, the Law of Moses determined what was righteous to do, say and think in their day. The Sanheedren determined the difference between righteous and evil acts with their understand of what was intended and allowed in the Law.

They had the Law of Moses and were convinced that the members of the Sanheedren were the only ones possessing the authority to define the intent of the Law. If a persons actions were deamed contrary to the Law they would get up on their “righteous indignation” chair (make room Crusader) and condem the guilty offender. In their minds, they were expressing and acting upon their righteous indignation as well.

“The Sadducees believed in the status-quo. They were of the aristocracy. They did not believe in the Oral Law - the writings of the fathers, nor did they believe in the resurrection. Their chief interest was in preserving their prosperity. They did not oppose Jesus until political complications led them to do so at the end of His ministry. They were the ruling power in the Sanheedren at the time of Christ.”

“The Pharisees resisted foreign influence and were zealous for their oral and written traditions. This party was patriotic and orthodox - meaning that they held to the traditional with fervor. Jesus met opposition from the beginning because of His rejection of the traditions from the beginning - discriminating the traditions from the Scriptures.”

“The Scribes (Rabbis) were closely associated with the people everywhere. They were the party who interpreted the traditions for the people. There is a long history of the "writings of the fathers" from which the Talmud was derived. But the Scribes were the ones who interfaced with the people mostly. They were the ones who built a "hedge" around the Mosaic Law so much so that they would crush out the spirit of true Jewish religion.”

Jesus was there to change all that they were acustomed to and fulfill the Law. Jesus met them head on and was found guilty and crusified by their suppossed true and justifiable “righteous indignation”. When in fact it was their counterfit indignation fueled by their stubberness and unwillingness to accept the truth that would ultimately change and improve their lives that caused the anger and hate. Sound familiar?

“Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying.” (Matt. 15:12)

They obviously were convinced that they had God and Moses on their side and therefore had total and complete justification for their indignation. However, I think you will agree with me when I state that their suppossed righteous indignation concerning Jesus was not Holy Ghost inspired nor did it come down from Heaven but was in fact evil and counterfiet.

Instead of true and righteous, they were expierencing counterfiet and false righteous indignation which in fact sprang from the evil anger seed planted by satan. They were deceived into thinking their indignation was rightious by satan. They would not consider nor could they imagine that the anger and hateful emotions they were experiencing and directing toward Jesus were evil or satan inspired. They supposed that they had Moses and God on their side as they possessed and ruled the Jews with the Law of Moses. The mob was tragically wrong then and completely wrong again in 1844. Just like them, you say you have the scriptures (The Law) and need no more and don't need a Prophet and just like them and you are as wrong in our day as they were in their day.

Here is an example of the counterfiet righteous indignation at work:

Matt. 12:14 “Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.”

Jesus possessed the true heaven sent, Holy Ghost inspired, righteous indignation towards the Pharisees and Sadducees while they experienced and demonstrated for the entire world that there is actually a counterfeit indignation spawned from evil, planted, nourished and developed by satan.

I think and hope that now, after carefully considering all of the above that you will agree with me that the Godly emotion of true righteous indignation Jesus brought with Him and demonstrated while here on Earth is significantly and obviously as different as; unequivocal truth and damndable lies, Sun and black hole, celestial and Hell, never and eternal, hilarious and tragic, up close and to the moon Alice, gargantuan and minute etc. than the counterfeit, phony, self deceiving, improper, untrue, criminal, shady, snake oil, rip off, imitation and fictional evil angry untrue, did I say evil, indignation experienced proclaimed and promulgated by the satan duped Pharisees and Sadducees along with all those afflicted with the same evil damdable disease while they were chanting;

CRUISIFY HIM!! CRUSIFY HIM!!! CRUSIFY HIM!!!


For you to consider, imply, insist and deduce that anyone in the painted faced mob charging up the stairs, locked, loaded, and cocked six shooter in hand fully intent on murdering absolutely innocent, not proven guilty of anything in a court of law by their peers, would have been completely exonerated of any crime worthy of the death, is in any way shape or form righteous, is as tragic a concept of true Jesus inspired Christian religion as it can get.

You think your are saddened!!! Cold-blooded murder equals Christian in your mind??? What are you thinking and what is the source of those totally inconceivable tragic impressions dancing around in your head. I know their source and hope you will determine soon that their source is not the righteous, Holy Ghost inspired Jesus demonstrated proper emotions of Godly anger but is in fact an evil anti-Christian seed planted by satan to deceive all those who subscribe to your impression and interpretation. Cold-blooded murder never was nor ever will be interpreted as Jesus’ form of Christianity

Since when does the Holy Ghost inspire men’s indignation righteous or otherwise to demonstrate it by painting your face black? Would you consider that the fact that they began their supposed and implied by you “possibly justifiable righteous indignation” by painting their face black was an obvious clue to everyone but you that the intent of their hearts was to do a bad thing and try to get away with it?

How could they be recognized or identified as the murders they were if they all looked the same and were unidentifiable. Sounds like an unrighteous evil plan to everyone but those congratulating them and thankful for the completion of their premeditated evil deed. Sounds like the acclaim and recognition the Jesus is a fake and blasphemer of God Pharisees and Sadducees received and unwittingly accepted after the exercise of their similar to yours “Joseph Smith is a phony, “righteous indignation”.

Let me think, when was the last time a truly righteous act was committed openly with a six-shooter packing mob fully intent on concealing their identity with blackened faces for the obvious and justifiable reason to exact your kind and type of “possibly righteous indignation”.

I have looked long and hard to find righteous and faces painted black to conceal identity in the same context and have come up empty so could you help me find your source that allows painted faced cowards with six shooters murdering innocent men only wanting to enjoy the freedom of religion guaranteed for all (including Mormons) in the Constitution of the United States of America, or did you just invent it out of nothing on your own and you’re making it up as you go?

What are you reading that defines righteous indignation as; lets form a mob and go murder innocent men justifiable by our; we don’t agree with their religious claims so lets murder them and we will get away with it by painting our faces black to conceal our identity.

Here is what your possibly justifiable righteous indignation evil mob did:

“Immediately there was a little rustling at the outer door of the jail, and a cry of surrender, and also a discharge of three or four firearms followed instantly. The doctor glanced an eye by the curtain of the window, and saw about a hundred armed men around the door. It is said that the guard elevated their firelocks, and boisterously threatening the mob discharged their firearms over their heads. The mob encircled the building, and some of them rushed by the guard up the flight of stairs, burst open the door, and began the work of death, while others fired in through the open windows.

In the meantime Joseph, Hyrum, and Elder Taylor had their coats off. Joseph sprang to his coat for his six-shooter, Hyrum for his single barrel, Taylor for Markham's large hickory cane, and Dr. Richards for Taylor's cane. All sprang against the door, the balls whistled up the stairway, and in an instant one came through the door.

Joseph Smith, John Taylor and Dr. Richards sprang to the left of the door, and tried to knock aside the guns of the ruffians.

Hyrum was retreating back in front of the door and snapped his pistol, when a ball struck him in the left side of his nose, and he fell on his back on the floor saying, "I am a dead man!" As he fell on the floor another ball from the outside entered his left side, and passed through his body with such force that it completely broke to pieces the watch he wore in his vest pocket, and at the same instant another ball from the door grazed his breast, and entered his head by the throat; subsequently a fourth ball entered his left leg.

A shower of balls was pouring through all parts of the room, many of which lodged in the ceiling just above the head of Hyrum.

Joseph reached round the door casing, and discharged his six-shooter into the passage, some barrels missing fire. Continual discharges of musketry came into the room. Elder Taylor continued parrying the guns until they had got them about half their length into the room, when he found that resistance was vain, and he attempted to jump out of the window, where a ball fired from within struck him on his left thigh, hitting the bone, and passing through to within half an inch of the other side. He fell on the window sill, when a ball fired from the outside struck his watch in his vest pocket, and threw him back into the room.

After he fell into the room he was hit by two more balls, one of them injuring his left wrist considerably, and the other entering at the side of the bone just below the left knee. He rolled under the bed, which was at the right of the window in the south-east corner of the room.

While he lay under the bed he was fired at several times from the stairway; one ball struck him on the left hip, which tore the flesh in a shocking manner, and large quantities of blood were scattered upon the wall and floor.

When Hyrum fell, Joseph exclaimed, "Oh dear, brother Hyrum!" and opening the door a few inches he discharged his six shooter in the stairway (as stated before), two or three barrels of which missed fire.

Joseph, seeing there was no safety in the room, and no doubt thinking that it would save the lives of his brethren in the room if he could get out, turned calmly from the door, dropped his pistol on the floor, and sprang into the window when two balls pierced him from the door, and one entered his right breast from without, and he fell outward into the hands of his murderers, exclaiming. "O Lord, my God!"

Dr. Richards' escape was miraculous; he being a very large man, and in the midst of a shower of balls, yet he stood unscathed, with the exception of a ball which grazed the tip end of the lower part of his left ear. His escape fulfilled literally a prophecy which Joseph made over a year previously, that the time would come that the balls would fly around him like hail, and he should see his friends fall on the right and on the left, but that there should not be a hole in his garment.”

I will close with; satan inspired, evil, counterfeit, supposed possibly righteous indignation, neither was nor ever will be true Godly righteous indignation. Jesus is our example of true righteous indignation.The Pharisees and Sadducees are examples of exactly how dangerous supposed righteous indignation is that is in reality counterfeit and evil anger.

If your righteous indignation leads you to join an angry mob, charge upstairs and fire through closed doors, thereby creating martyrs or you find yourself in a crowd chanting;


CRUSIFY HIM!!! CRUISF HIM!!! CRUSIFY HIM!!!

then you can bet it is counterfeit, false and imagined and spawned from satan, the evil one himself.

Don’t mix the two or confuse the two as the Biblical evidence is clear there is a difference and that difference could determine your eternity. It usually does. There are sheep and goats and wheat and tares and you have been blessed with your free agency to choose to be one or the other.


I quote Trout from his post #71: That isn't what I meant when I used the term, "exegesis". When I speak of exegesis I am speaking strictly of the science of Biblical interpretation.

OK, then IMO, all those professing to be Biblical scholars with finely honed scripture exegesis and experts in the science of Biblical interpretation are left with little excuse for not identifying and delineating counterfeit righteous indignation from the real evil satanic anger it actually is. What is your excuse?

Joseph Smith was a true Prophet martyred by evil counterfeit supposed possibly possessing righteous indignation (NOT!) devil possessed morons
and that’s a fact Jack.

Here kitty, kitty, kitty, kitty

LDSTrue!
PS: You used this scripture quote in the wrong context and I would appreciate a shot at helping you with the discernment of the true hidden meaning therein.


BtC: Anger is not always a product of Satan. Being slow to anger is a quality of Godliness
Scripture Verse:
Proverbs 14:29
He who is slow to anger has great understanding,But he who is quick-tempered exalts folly.

If “ He who is slow to anger has great understanding” and you are in with a mob that is clearly being fast to anger then you are dealing with devil influenced half-witted, red-necked morons that are without great understanding and are in fact without any understanding and are involved with a folly.

[Krusader]

It must be your bright and cheery attitude I am overlooking.


It must be your bright and cheery attitude I am avoiding.


No. You should know better than that by now. It just that your are no fun to talk to. With you its all contention or nothing and that is not fun to look forward to. Dee Dee said this is a place for fun so let go and have a little. You’ll survive just fine. A little levity is good for the soul and will help erase all those frown lines.


I do not admit to mocking or “mockery” as you put it. I simply related that I could not find it anywhere in the Bible in sort of an innocent story form.



No. You know I’m under a lot of pressure from Bill the Cat and you know how demanding he can be.

Besides, you have yet to be nice to me once. You are the only snap in the face I feel every time you address me in your posts and who needs a steady diet of snaps.

Hey, I just had a scary thought, what if you have been being nice to me this whole time and your going to revert back to your not so nice self once you have disarmed me with your charm. SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!

LIGHTEN UP A LITTLE no LIGHTEN UP A LOT!!! The Church is still true.

LDSTrue!

LDS T: If your goal is to be an apologist for Mormonism, then you must learn to answer the hard questions. Now, if Christ attained to godhood as your church teaches, sometime in pre-existence, did Christ cease being a god when He became a man? This is not a hard question. This is a fun question.

[Nosnomis]

There is also the fact that after the mob killed Joseph Smith, they panicked when they thought that the Mormons might retaliate against them. Once it was found out that the Mormons would not retaliate (i.e. take vengeance against the mob by going around hunting for the murderers), the mob returned and began looting homes again and trying to force the Mormons to leave Nauvoo.

[Bill the Cat]

“2 others”???? “”OTHERS”” You make it sound as if those cowards were innocent children playing in their back yards with a Frisbee. Were those murderers killed playing with their toys or while they were shooting through a closed door at innocent men who’s only crime was wanting to enjoy the freedom of religion granted to all in the governing Constitution.

You missed the point. What happened to Joseph was a tragedy to be sure, and the men who did it were totally wrong, but that was not the point I was making. He took a smuggled gun BEFORE there was ever a mob at the stairwell. What was he planning to do with it?


And what was his offence: From the American Prophet I quote:

:snip:

It sounds like freedom of religion should apply and be granted here and not death by a cowardly mob!!!
I agree with you there. But the fact remains that unlike Jesus or the other martyrs, Joseph was armed and fought back and killed 2 people, not “a lamb led to the slaughter” like the early church history likes to show.

The NOT so innocent “2 others” were painted faced cowards unlawfully and shamefully conspiring to murder innocent men. It could have easily been those “2 others” that fired through the door and murdered Joseph’s’ brother Hyrum before Joseph put to good use the “smuggled gun”. They got what they deserved for their murderous acts. They died in their sins unrepentant of murdering innocent men and have been very thirsty since.
Yet Jesus stayed Peter’s sword, and showed what a martyr’s death should have been. Joseph was angry and killed in return, not a true Christian martyr’s death.


Do you mean to imply that had Joseph Smith gone down without firing a shot that you would be a Mormon today? It appears that in your opinion, if one defends himself against cowards all he has said and done is worthless and corrupt and you want nothing to do with them.

No. You misread my intent. Your church touts him as an innocent man, “a lamb led to the slaughter”, and a martyr not afraid to die for his faith. But those misstatements are only the tip of the iceberg of why I am not a Mormon.



Am I reading your “Great testimony” comment correctly?

I guess the real testimony is the way the Mormon community handled the senseless murder of Joseph Smith. No mobs or reprisals, no one seeking revenge. If you are looking for a testimony of some sort, look it up.

Oh, I am quite aware at what happened. And what response would have been smart? A huge mob murders your leader; do you fight them or run? The smart move is the one they made. Get out of town and regroup.


Why would one of Joseph Smiths friends smuggle him in a gun you say. I mean after all, he was in jail with law abiding officers in charge wasn’t he. Why be worried you say?

From the American Prophet I quote:

“When he arrived, the Carthage Greys—the local militia—unruly and decidedly anti-Mormon, were commissioned to keep the peace. “In the days that followed, Joseph was paraded before the troops, brought before a judge, and then locked in Carthage Jail. Eight of his friends elected to stay with him. On June 27, a guard at the jail boasted to one of Joseph's companions of the imminent end of the prized prisoner: "We have had too much trouble to bring Old Joe here to let him ever escape alive, and unless you want to die with him you had better leave before sundown . . . and you'll see that I can prophesy better than Old Joe."

That quote is from the guard at the door. Get real BtC, If you or I were in that same situation we both would have seen to it that we were armed to the teeth and you know it!

If I were the prophet of God, I wouldn’t have worried about it. Did Peter or Paul fight tooth and nail or accept their death with humility and grace?


X. Paul
Paul, the apostle, who before was called Saul, after his great travail and unspeakable labors in promoting the Gospel of Christ, suffered also in this first persecution under Nero. Abdias, declareth that under his execution Nero sent two of his esquires, Ferega and Parthemius, to bring him word of his death. They, coming to Paul instructing the people, desired him to pray for them, that they might believe; who told them that shortly after they should believe and be baptised at His sepulcher. This done, the soldiers came and led him out of the city to the place of execution, where he, after his prayers made, gave his neck to the sword.

IX. Peter
Among many other saints, the blessed apostle Peter was condemned to death, and crucified, as some do write, at Rome; albeit some others, and not without cause, do doubt thereof. Hegesippus saith that Nero sought matter against Peter to put him to death; which, when the people perceived, they entreated Peter with much ado that he would fly the city. Peter, through their importunity at length persuaded, prepared himself to avoid. But, coming to the gate, he saw the Lord Christ come to meet him, to whom he, worshipping, said, "Lord, whither dost Thou go?" To whom He answered and said, "I am come again to be crucified." By this, Peter, perceiving his suffering to be understood, returned into the city. Jerome saith that he was crucified, his head being down and his feet upward, himself so requiring, because he was (he said) unworthy to be crucified after the same form and manner as the Lord was.



So I don’t need to “come off it”. If Joseph was an Apostle, then he should have welcomed death and the chance to be with his god the way the Apostles of old did.

Matthew 10
28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.



How long would you stand there after your Brother is shot dead in front of your face and do nothing? How long would you wait to draw and fire after your wife or one of your children or a close family member is shot to death in front of your face???

So you admit that anger is not necessarily bad all the time? Do you retract your statement that Satan instigates all anger?


The first bullets fired in that jail that day hit Hyrum Smith in the face killing him instantly and were fired through a closed door. Anything after that was self-defense and wholly justifiable in any court in the land.

I couldn’t agree more there. He was totally justified to defend himself in the natural and according to the law of the land, but that ain’t the point. Peter was wholly justified to kill every Roman in the Garden, yet Jesus stayed his sword, didn’t He?


How could you expect Joseph to stand and watch while his loved ones and friends are massacred by those cowards. What are you thinking??? You wouldn’t tolerate it any more than he did.

I never claimed to be above all other men ever except Jesus either, now did I?



There should not be a shred of defense spoken for their cowardly murderous actions and yet it sounds as if both you and Crusader would have started and managed their defense fund. I guess you both are the examples of the case in point; until it happens to you or one of your innocent loved ones the concept of self preservation, defense and justice is not that justified, essential or significant.

You misjudge me and my intentions. The murderous mob was horribly wrong to kill him in my eyes. But the point rests. He got angry and killed other men.

Also, I have been in the military for 18 years and I have launched planes that bombed Afghanistan and Iraq. I know about defense and justice all too well.

Every Prophet and Apostle to ever walk the Earth was human, inherited the natural human trait of self-protection, which is a natural and understandable reaction.

Refuted above.


You remember when the Apostle Peter drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of the Roman guards. There would have been more than one ear on the ground if Peter had been armed with more than a sword at the time.

Answered above.


The martyrdom of the Prophet neither directly proves nor disproves his vision of or his calling from our Father and Jesus. It is what he established, brought forth, revealed and restored that is proof positive and proof enough.

Fallacy. Begs the question of the church needing restoration. The existence of a 1 Billion member Church that has born the history of nearly 2000 uninterrupted years stands as the guilty verdict on Mormonism.



The martyrdom of Joseph Smith was his signature to the truthfulness of his calling from God and the wise would not hold his tragic death up for, nor participate in, ridicule.

His death served to remind us how brutal those in the 1800s were, and how hated he was for the things he did. It is not proof of his calling any more than Billy the Kid being shot in the back is proof of him having a calling. You make enemies in brutal times, they will kill you.


They martyred an innocent man who's only crime was being called a Prophet and fulfilling that calling for and in behalf of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

Oh, he was despised for more than a self-given title. Just read the news articles from around that time. He was seen as a woman stealer and a megalomaniac, to name but a few.


I’m also combining your posts to avoid the back to back rules.


Hey BtC:

This is part B of Post 1 I think. I must admit I'm losing track.

[QUOTE=LDSTrue]:Would you agree that satan stirs up the hearts of men to anger?

Yes I would say that he does. But remember the context I am speaking in with this line of questions.



BTC, ARE YOU SERIOUS??? “You’re pullin my chain”, “rattleing my cage”, “messin with my mind man”. You put satan’s anger and Heavely inspired righteous indignation in the same sentence and consider them to be equal, justifiable and on par!!!

No… And in context of what I was discussing (and with trepidation, not wanting to sound overly rude) You asked if comparing Joseph to Jesus made me angry. I take anyone slandering my Jesus personally, just as Jesus took slandering His Father’s House personally.



You apparently haven’t clearly understood nor are you considering the possibility of the differences between, and sources of, ligitimite Heavenly righteous indignation and evil true anger disguised as counterfeit righteous indignation. Your missconseption has been echoed on this site and proven to be very prevelent in some post's (Are your ears itching Crusader?).

Please point it out so we can evaluate it together. My indignation comes from anyone slandering Jesus. Now, am I behaving like Jesus or Peter? That remains to be seen.



It appears that you have mistakenly forgottten to take into consideration the fact that Jesus was a perfect man., a God on Earth. Any emotion Jesus would have experience or demonstraited would be righteous and not even close to the counterfeit evil(aka satan) sourced.

Exactly. And aren’t we called to be “like Him?” So if we have the mind of Christ, we can also have righteous indignation correctly aimed.


You imply that there is only one source of indignation and ignore the fact or possibility that satan can influence one to think his indignation is righteous when in fact it is sprouting from an evil seed.

No, that was not my intent.


God does not have evil men carry out his righteous justice. If God gets angry and wants to vent His anger he has demonstrated that He is quite capable of the destruction all by Himself.

Read the Bible much then? Who did God use to punish Israel? Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, the Romans, the Greeks, etc - all evil men.



If God uses man to carry out His righteous indignation he has proven time and time again that He will use rightous men to meet out His anger and has yet to use, nor is it recorded that He will imploy; faces painted black, six gun packing, attempting identity consealment, halfwit red neck devil possessed morons to carry out His vengence.

Maybe not, but he used Baal worshipping, sword toting, graven image bowing, pig eating, human sacrificing Babylonians.


I know this may sound foreign to you but those cowards were not righteous nor did they have righteous intent nor were they “On A Mission From God”

I’m sure the Israelites said the same things about their Babylonian captors. Who are you to judge the methods of God?

:snip: the irrelevant stuff


Jesus was there to change all that they were accustomed to and fulfill the Law. Jesus met them head on and was found guilty and crucified by their supposed true and justifiable “righteous indignation”. When in fact it was their counterfeit indignation fueled by their stubbornness and unwillingness to accept the truth that would ultimately change and improve their lives that caused the anger and hate. Sound familiar?

Not really. Sorry. It is Mormon stubbornness that keeps them from the true words of Jesus and their stubborn pride in thinking they “restored” what Jesus said would never fail.



The mob was tragically wrong then and completely wrong again in 1844. Just like them, you say you have the scriptures (The Law) and need no more and don't need a Prophet and just like them and you are as wrong in our day as they were in their day.

Notice the words of Paul on this subject:

1 Corinthians 12
28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.


Paul shows you false here. Apostles are FIRST, then ProphetS (Notice it is PLURAL). We have those with prophetic giftings in our church, so your notion is wrong.



I think and hope that now, after carefully considering all of the above that you will agree with me that the Godly emotion of true righteous indignation Jesus brought with Him and demonstrated while here on Earth is significantly and obviously as different as; unequivocal truth and damndable lies, Sun and black hole, celestial and Hell, never and eternal, hilarious and tragic, up close and to the moon Alice, gargantuan and minute etc. than the counterfeit, phony, self deceiving, improper, untrue, criminal, shady, snake oil, rip off, imitation and fictional evil angry untrue, did I say evil, indignation experienced proclaimed and promulgated by the satan duped Pharisees and Sadducees along with all those afflicted with the same evil damdable disease while they were chanting;

CRUISIFY HIM!! CRUSIFY HIM!!! CRUSIFY HIM!!!

Man, I thought I was long winded… :no:

My indignation at Mormonism slandering Jesus is the type He displayed at His Father’s House being desecrated. I’ll let Him be the judge of that, not you.



For you to consider, imply, insist and deduce that anyone in the painted faced mob charging up the stairs, locked, loaded, and cocked six shooter in hand fully intent on murdering absolutely innocent, not proven guilty of anything in a court of law by their peers, would have been completely exonerated of any crime worthy of the death, is in any way shape or form righteous, is as tragic a concept of true Jesus inspired Christian religion as it can get.

Who said they were righteous?



You think your are saddened!!! Cold-blooded murder equals Christian in your mind??? What are you thinking and what is the source of those totally inconceivable tragic impressions dancing around in your head. I know their source and hope you will determine soon that their source is not the righteous, Holy Ghost inspired Jesus demonstrated proper emotions of Godly anger but is in fact an evil anti-Christian seed planted by satan to deceive all those who subscribe to your impression and interpretation. Cold-blooded murder never was nor ever will be interpreted as Jesus’ form of Christianity

Never said it was. The indignation I discussed was in response to your and Mormonism’s implication that Joseph was on par with Jesus.


Since when does the Holy Ghost inspire men’s indignation righteous or otherwise to demonstrate it by painting your face black? Would you consider that the fact that they began their supposed and implied by you “possibly justifiable righteous indignation” by painting their face black was an obvious clue to everyone but you that the intent of their hearts was to do a bad thing and try to get away with it?

Now what’d that straw man ever do to you?? :lol2:



I have looked long and hard to find righteous and faces painted black to conceal identity in the same context and have come up empty so could you help me find your source that allows painted faced cowards with six shooters murdering innocent men only wanting to enjoy the freedom of religion guaranteed for all (including Mormons) in the Constitution of the United States of America, or did you just invent it out of nothing on your own and you’re making it up as you go?

Are you trying out for the part of the Wicked Witch of the West?? “How about a little FIRE scarecrow?” The way you are at it, you are a shoe in!! :yipee:

:snip: the irrelevant history lesson…



Don’t mix the two or confuse the two as the Biblical evidence is clear there is a difference and that difference could determine your eternity. It usually does. There are sheep and goats and wheat and tares and you have been blessed with your free agency to choose to be one or the other.

And I have chosen 16 years ago to follow the true historical Jesus Christ.




Joseph Smith was a true Prophet martyred by evil counterfeit supposed possibly possessing righteous indignation (NOT!) devil possessed morons
and that’s a fact Jack.

Never said it was righteous indignation on their part.



Here kitty, kitty, kitty, kitty

The kitty you call is a straw man of your own design. The one over here (that’d be me) has quoted scripture and history. And THAT is the fact, Jack!


Oh, and I work at a desk all day, so I have time to focus my energies on work and posting here.

:btc3: :billsign:

[Krusader]

And let's not forget that it was Emma who had to run after the Smith boys and haul them back to face the music after they took off across the river and hid!!!!! Emma had to shame Joseph into coming back, pointing out that his people were fearful and needed him. One might even make a case here for Emma being the good Shepherd(ess), while her husband fled like the hirelings Jesus warned about.

[LDSTrue]

And let's not forget that it was Emma who had to run after the Smith boys and haul them back to face the music after they took off across the river and hid!!!!! Emma had to shame Joseph into coming back, pointing out that his people were fearful and needed him. One might even make a case here for Emma being the good Shepherd(ess), while her husband fled like the hirelings Jesus warned about.

Hi Cru,

Thank you for your opinion.

I believe that if you look really close you will find mentioned in the scriptures that Jesus Himself disappeared from and escaped the angry mob about to stone him. Does your low opinion of men escaping angry mobs apply to Him as well? If not, why not???

I’m glad you hold Emma Smith in such high regard. I agree with you, she was and is a saint and was an incredible and loyal wife to the end.

I’m glad you have changed your attitude as it is much more pleasant. It shows! :teeth:

Always LDSTrue!

[LDSTrue]

Hey BtC:

Thank you for your patience. This is part C of Post #1.
I’ll tried to make it worth the wait.

First and foremost! Thank you for your service to our Country, the greatest Country and Nation in the World. It is because of courageous men like you that I still have the freedom to sit here and burn out my spell check. I salute you for your service and wish you and yours the very best! You have earned and deserve it. I will be forever grateful for your concern for, and protection of, our freedoms and rights along with many millions of your supporters! It is a privilege to know you!!! (I think I kinda' know you sortta' a little.)

I was a Sergeant in the Army Reserves and ran the portable laundry unit. I wanted to drive the Tank and shoot the cannon but they convinced me that clean clothes were just as important.

Hey look what I found, a scripture that supports that concept. I guess they were right. 1 Cor. 12: 12, & 14-18
12 “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
14 “For the body is not one member, but many.
15 “If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?”
16 “And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?”
17 “ If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?”
18 “But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.”
(The only difference was that it was an Army Captain and not God …... or was it?)


Quote: LDSTrue:
IMO the exact opposite is quite apparent, as he wiped out the entire foundation of the Church in a few short years.


Quote BtC:That is a total falsehood. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. The foundation of the Church is the declaration that Jesus Christ is Lord. That message has never been wiped out.


Quote BtC:
I Cor. 3: 10-11
10” According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.”
11 “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Here I believe Paul is referring to the Salvation of Mankind and not the foundation of His Church. I believe Paul is teaching that without Jesus Christ, there would not be Salvation for Man.

It is true and I agree with you when you state that Jesus Christ is Lord and taking that declaration to the world was and is one of the most important missions of the Church. However, Jesus has declared for all exactly what the foundation of His Church is made of and it is and was not a “declaration” but instead was revelation. Here is proof:

Matt. 16: 15 –16
15 “he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God.
17 “ And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven.
18 “And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell (“shall”) not prevail against it”.

Some say the scripture in reality actually refers to both the Church and Heaven sent revelation. Some say that Jesus was addressing the fact that Peter received his knowledge and testimony that Jesus is the Son of God by revelation from God and the meaning of “shall not prevail against it” is actually refering to “the gates of hell” will not prevail against true Heaven sent truthful revalation. (I am inclined to go along with the sum thereof!)

Hell with all its lies and deception will not ultimately prevail against the truth reveled from Heaven by and through the Holy Ghost, the conveyor of truth. Have you heard anything about this or is that a new concept for you to consider?

Jesus said the foundation of His Church is revelation. Isn’t it obvious that Jesus is talking about the fact that His Father revealed it unto Simon Bar-jona (AKA the rock) the fact that Jesus was “the Christ the Son of the Living God” and not “flesh and blood”.

Besides, how could/can satan and his devils stop Father from giving revelation to Man. I admit they try with angry mobs with evil intent utilizing crosses and six guns a' blasing, however, Father always finds a way to replace those martyerd and restore His revelations in the end for the end.


Quote BtC: That is a total falsehood, Jesus said the gates of hell (would?) not prevail against the church.

Perhaps it says that in BtC: 1:1 “the gates of hell (“would”) not prevail against the church”.

However, I quote: Matt. 16:18 “And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell (“shall”) not prevail against the church”.

What does your scientific “scripture exegesis” tell you the difference is between your “would” and Jesus’ use of the word “shall”? Is there a discernable difference between the term you used and the term Jesus used?

Were you just offering your personal interpretation or did you assume you were quoting scripture verbatim? Could the difference change the true meaning of the scripture when you substitute your “would” for the “shall” that Jesus actually said. Is that why you changed the word or is it that you are unaware that there could be a big difference.

“Shall” synonyms = be possible, might, be conceivable, be within reach, may.

Your BtC: 1:1 use of “would” implies that the “gates of hell” have no chance and yet Jesus’ use of the word “shall” appears to give hope to those gates.

Jesus use of “shall” implies that the gates (satan and his entourage of devils) are going to put up quite a struggle. In fact, their efforts to confuse, destroy and conquer may bring victory for them within reach and it is conceivable and may be possible that they just might Heaven forbid …win, else, why would Jesus use the term? Was the word “would” not in use at the time and not available to Jesus at the time? I think not!

If Jesus wanted to quote BtC: 1:1 and use “would” instead of “shall” He could have easily done so and would have if He had wanted.

“Shall” seems to imply that several righteous battles will be won and several righteous battles will be lost. Each time a Apostle and/or Prophet is lost to any angry Government or half witted red necked angry out of their mind moron mob a battle is lost. “Shall” seems to indicate and imply that though there will be several righteous battles lost, eventually the war will be won by Jesus, notwithstanding at great cost.

Please do not think I am intending to convey contention by revealing your substitution of the word “would” for the word “shall” that Jesus used.

It is not my intention to prove BtC: 1:1 is false, or not scriptural. However, you must know how demanding “scripture exegesis” is and what the penalties are for failing to observe scientific biblical interpretation. Believe me, I have been duly warned and I do not want another severe lashing from him. It hurt! (Are your ears itching Trout?)

On to Bill the Cat: 2:2

Quote: BtC: “The foundation of the church is the declaration that Jesus Christ is Lord”.

BtC: Perhaps in Bill the Cat 2:2 it states: “The foundation of the Church is the declaration that Jesus Christ is Lord”. However, …

I like what you said as it sounds really good! Normally, I would not disagree as by now you know that I detest contention and look for every opportunity to agree with my opponent. There have been few exceptions to that contentious statement until now!

Look what I have found in the Bible concerning a foundation scripture.

Eph 2:20 “And are built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone”.
Also:
Rev. 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”.

It appears that Apostles are the “foundation” of the Jesus’ Church and one of their very important if not foundational responsibilities is to declare that “Jesus Christ is Lord”.

Besides, you provided scripture on the subject which confirms the fact that Apostles are the foundation as they came first. You must agree, it was the Apostles who then appointed prophets, teachers, etc. It appears that without “first Apostles” you would not have the others, hence, the statement “foundation of Apostles”.


Quote BtC: Notice the words of Paul on this subject:

Scripture Verse:
1 Corinthians 12
28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.



Quote BtC: Paul shows you false here. Apostles are FIRST, then ProphetS (Notice it is PLURAL).

Yeh, I know, there are 15 on the earth today based in Salt Lake City.


We have those with prophetic giftings in our church,

Are they looking over their shoulders for any half witted red necks begining to get angry at them as they assemble with their six-shooters an cans of black paint. You had better warn them of the possibilities?


We have those with prophetic giftings in our church,

But do you have the whole body as mentioned in 1 Cor. 12: 12, & 14-18?

I ask you, what came first in the New Testament Church, the Apostle or the declaration? (I know all about John the Baptist and the others but you know what I mean. That is why I said “Church”. John the Baptist and the others were not part of the Apostolic Church. I am not referring to anyone making that declaration before Jesus laid hands on the disciples and called the twelve foundational Apostles.) Is it not required that you have someone to make the declaration before a declaration can be made.

I don’t disagree one scintilla with your “declaration”. It’s just that I’m concerned about the fact that you are unaware of your position and you are standing on a sand hill when you say it. Your opinion, attitude and reflections toward Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are very sandy, you know gritty and gruff. Considering Joseph Smith was standing on the Rock and the Church is now in the top of the mountains built upon that same Rock.

Here you are standing on a sand hill proclaiming the same thing I am only your position is on a sand hill and I am on the Rock. It would be better for you if you too were standing on the Rock in the top of the mountains while you make your “declaration”. Rock is always better to stand on than a sand hill and certainly makes a better “foundation” for your declaration.

Hey BtC, look what I found in the Bible: (Isaiah 2:2)

“And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORDS’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it”. (This cannot be a reference to the coming of the Lord as we are still in the last days and the last days will be over when He comes, right?)

LOOK AT THIS!!! I think I just had sort of a revelation kinda'!!!

Remember when the Winter Olympics were held in Salt Lake City “IN THE TOP OF THE MOUNTAINS” and “ALL NATIONS FLOWED UNTO IT”. WOW!!! Isaiah surely saw our day! It is a glorious time to be alive!!! The original descipiles have nothing on us! Well OK, maybe a personal contact and conversation with Jesus but that is all.

Here we are in the last days with the mountain of the LORD’s house established in Salt Lake City in the top of the mountains and all “nations” did flow unto it. UH OH! BtC, it is later than we think! Say BtC, what more solid proof do you need? Isaiah surely saw our day and our Church in Salt Lake City. The welcome mat is out and you and your friends are always welcome.
You may doubt me but Isaiah was sure and true so how about you?

Always LDSTrue!

PS: BtC: For your clarification, when I mention that God does not use unrighteous men to carry out His righteous judgements, which are considered His righteous indignation, I am referencing false Christ’s, false prophets, and wolves which are mentioned in the New Testament.

My point was, where is their untimely demise recorded? Their demise is not recorded and that was my point. Besides perhaps John, (he doesn’t count in this example) which one the original Apostles lived to die of old age? NONE, and that was/is my point.

The New Testament records Jesus’ establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ and we are talking about Joseph Smith restoring that same Church that Jesus established in the New Testament with His Apostles etc. It would appear that if you are truly an Apostle of Jesus Christ you will not die of old age regardless of the century you are living in. Satan and his mobs will see to it regardless of the century!

I am comparing the events recorded in the New Testament with the restoration of Jesus’ Church in these latter days. I am aware of your Old Testament examples and did not consider them pertinent as they did not pertain to the New Testament Church and the treatment of, and revelations to, the Apostles, His Church and His Church restored.

I enjoyed and appreciated your efforts nonetheless. Thank you!

[Bill the Cat]

Sorry LDSTrue, I probably won't get to this today. I am working on an outline for an article for my church's web site, so my attention will be there today. If I finish, I may look at this tonight.

Be well
Bill

[Krusader]

Hi Cru,

Thank you for your opinion.

I believe that if you look really close you will find mentioned in the scriptures that Jesus Himself disappeared from and escaped the angry mob about to stone him. Does your low opinion of men escaping angry mobs apply to Him as well? If not, why not???

I’m glad you hold Emma Smith in such high regard. I agree with you, she was and is a saint and was an incredible and loyal wife to the end.

I’m glad you have changed your attitude as it is much more pleasant. It shows! :teeth:

Always LDSTrue!

I think that it's very revealing that you would even dare to compare the cowardly act of Smith with the Lord walking (the crowd could not touch him, remember?) away from His adversaries. And the Lord wasn't fleeing from committing a felony crime! It's just one more evidence that Mormons seem to hold Smith in higher regard than the Lord. After all, Young taught that nobody could enter the celestial kingdom without the say so of Smith. Another disgusting statement. And you call yourselves the "restored" Christian Church? Well, why shouldn't you hold Smith in higher regard, since it was Smith, himself, who said he had done a greater work than Jesus? The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Emma had sent a note via two Mormons to Joseph and Hyram who were hiding across the Ohio. She told him that the only thing that would spare the town was the return of the two fugitive brothers. One of these emissaries put it to Smith somewhat like this: "you said you would always stick with the church if they stuck to you, and now you are abandoning it." Smith asked his brother, Hyram, if he wanted to return, and it was Hyram who made the decision to go back, not his feckless brother. Joseph finally agreed, but told Hyram that they would be butchered if they returned. So, in the final analysis, it was Hyram who had the courage to go back, not Joseph.

As far as Emma is concerned, she even denied on her death bed that Joseph had given any revelation on plural marriage. She joined the Restoration, so maybe the true church is really in Independence, MO, as Joseph prophesied, and you guys are all following false prophets. Young had no love for Emma, read some of his comments.

[LDSTrue]

Quote Crusader: If your goal is to be an apologist for Mormonism, then you must learn to answer the hard questions. Now, if Christ attained to godhood as your church teaches, sometime in pre-existence, did Christ cease being a god when He became a man? This is not a hard question. This is a fun question.


Hey Cru,

If you expect me to apologize for Mormonism then you will have to wait for Hell to… OH Wait, did you say apologist, and not apologize! Oh, wait, here it is, I see a . pol . o . gist = a person who writes or speaks in defense
Yep that’s me. OK I got it, I thought you wanted me to … (this is where you control your thoughts Cru)


NEVERMIND!!!

Thank you for your questions and I can see plenty of opportunity to enlighten you if you are open and willing to let a lot of light in.

I have not been ignoring you, it just that I have a life and business and …, …, and… then there is BtC.

I fully intend on answering your important questions ASAP! Please be patient with me.

Always LDSTrue!

PS: What did you do with your share of the Dean’s list award that I shared with you? Bigger house, new car, an exotic vacation with your loved one, college education fund, stocks and bonds?

[Krusader]

Hey Cru,

If you expect me to apologize for Mormonism then you will have to wait for Hell to… OH Wait, did you say apologist, and not apologize! Oh, wait, here it is, I see a . pol . o . gist = a person who writes or speaks in defense
Yep that’s me. OK I got it, I thought you wanted me to … (this is where you control your thoughts Cru)


NEVERMIND!!!

Thank you for your questions and I can see plenty of opportunity to enlighten you if you are open and willing to let a lot of light in.

I have not been ignoring you, it just that I have a life and business and …, …, and… then there is BtC.

I fully intend on answering your important questions ASAP! Please be patient with me.

Always LDSTrue!

PS: What did you do with your share of the Dean’s list award that I shared with you? Bigger house, new car, an exotic vacation with your loved one, college education fund, stocks and bonds?

You're just evasive, LDSTrue. What award are you talking about, did I miss something?

[LDSTrue]

You're just evasive, LDSTrue. What award are you talking about, did I miss something?

Hey Cru,

The award I am talking about is the only the “DEAN'S LIST AWARD” that Trout selected our post #64 herein to receive. :yipee:

I guess you missed the announcement. (How is that possible?)

What a surprise it was!!! When was the last time a Mormon won, do you know?
My recognition of the award and acceptance speech was given:bravo: in my post #70 addressed to Trout. Please check it out, it is at the bottom of the post in the PS::demure:

Post #70 is the one where I mentioned you, gave honorable mention to you, and shared the acclaim with you and the other contributors.:hug:

I thought I saw you in the crowd. Didn't you get your invite to the after party?:sad:

UH OH, here it is still on my desk. SORRY, MY BAD! Would you believe I forgot to mail it? Wait, I did mail it, it is a mystery how it turned up here on my desk, honest. :innocent:

You shoulda' been there, the Relief Society really know how to through a bash and boy can they bake. The brownies and chocolate chip cookies were to die for. :wink:

Maybe next time
Always LDSTrue!

PS: How often is it that lightning strikes in the same place twice?:flaming:

[LDSTrue]

Hey Cru,

The award I am talking about is the only the “DEAN'S LIST AWARD” that Trout selected our post #64 herein to receive. :yipee:

I guess you missed the announcement. (How is that possible?)

What a surprise it was!!! When was the last time a Mormon won, do you know?
My recognition of the award and acceptance speech was given:bravo: in my post #70 addressed to Trout. Please check it out, it is at the bottom of the post in the PS::demure:

Post #70 is the one where I mentioned you, gave honorable mention to you, and shared the acclaim with you and the other contributors.:hug:

I thought I saw you in the crowd. Didn't you get your invite to the after party?:sad:

UH OH, here it is still on my desk. SORRY, MY BAD! Would you believe I forgot to mail it? Wait, I did mail it, it is a mystery how it turned up here on my desk, honest. :innocent:

You shoulda' been there, the Relief Society really know how to through a bash and boy can they bake. The brownies and chocolate chip cookies were to die for. :wink:

Maybe next time
Always LDSTrue!

PS: How often is it that lightning strikes in the same place twice?:flaming:

How do you spell throw anyway :blush: ? I thought throw and typed through and when I did my edit I saw through and thought throw for some reason. Does that make sense? I hate when someone blows the punch line, I guess we are all guilty at one time or another and that is why we need a ...!

Please allow me to repent and correct the error: "You shoulda' been there, the Relief Society really knows how to throw a bash and boy can they bake. The brownies and chocolate chip cookies were to die for." :wink:

Am I forgiven?:pray: I sure hope so, I have faith that it is possible.

Thank you!

Always LDSTrue!

[Krusader]

How do you spell throw anyway :blush: ? I thought throw and typed through and when I did my edit I saw through and thought throw for some reason. Does that make sense? I hate when someone blows the punch line, I guess we are all guilty at one time or another and that is why we need a ...!

Please allow me to repent and correct the error: "You shoulda' been there, the Relief Society really knows how to throw a bash and boy can they bake. The brownies and chocolate chip cookies were to die for." :wink:

Am I forgiven?:pray: I sure hope so, I have faith that it is possible.

Thank you!

Always LDSTrue!

LDS True, missed the dean's list thing - I have a life apart from TWEB. Baptists can outcook LDS anytime.

[LDSTrue]

LDS True, missed the dean's list thing - I have a life apart from TWEB. Baptists can outcook LDS anytime.

Samples PLEASE!!! I will be expecting Brownies and Chocolate Chip Cookies SOON!!!

Today is a travel day for me. I am going to Salt Lake City for business.

No Cru, it has nothing to do with monkeys.

What a coincidence, here I am going to Salt Lake City at the same time as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is having their General Conference.

You know, the really big assembly of the saints at the top of the mountains where the Apostles and Prophets (notice BtC it is plural) called by Jesus in these latter days speaks to the entire World and conveys His messages worldwide while standing on the Rock. I challenge all to tune in watch, listen, and then prove them wrong on Monday.

On your mark, get set, GO! It is televised, on cable, and the Internet so no excuses please.

Guess what, I was extremely blessed as I scored a ticket and will be in attendance. I say extreeeeemely blessed because there are about 12 million Mormons that want to be there so unfortunately not everyone wanting a ticket gets one.

No, I won’t be on the stand and no I won’t be giving a talk and no I am not in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, (throw? or though?) I wish I could sing the beautiful praises to Jesus in song with them as they do so often. I just LOVE Jesus, don’t you!!!

I will be the one in the blue suit; white shirt and red tie about 50 rows back so watch for me. You might see me in the audience when the camera pans the assembly, I should be easy to spot, tall, dark and handsome in a blue suit.

Stop it Cru, no it’s not true that I should be wearing the white jump suit with all the white straps securely fastened.

I will try and find time to continue posting while in Salt Lake City if time and the Spirit allows. OH NO, look at the time, I had better get going or I’m going to miss the boat.

May God be with you until we meet again!

Always and forever, LDSTrue!

[Krusader]

Samples PLEASE!!! I will be expecting Brownies and Chocolate Chip Cookies SOON!!!

Today is a travel day for me. I am going to Salt Lake City for business.

No Cru, it has nothing to do with monkeys.

What a coincidence, here I am going to Salt Lake City at the same time as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is having their General Conference.

You know, the really big assembly of the saints at the top of the mountains where the Apostles and Prophets (notice BtC it is plural) called by Jesus in these latter days speaks to the entire World and conveys His messages worldwide while standing on the Rock. I challenge all to tune in watch, listen, and then prove them wrong on Monday.

On your mark, get set, GO! It is televised, on cable, and the Internet so no excuses please.

Guess what, I was extremely blessed as I scored a ticket and will be in attendance. I say extreeeeemely blessed because there are about 12 million Mormons that want to be there so unfortunately not everyone wanting a ticket gets one.

No, I won’t be on the stand and no I won’t be giving a talk and no I am not in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, (throw? or though?) I wish I could sing the beautiful praises to Jesus in song with them as they do so often. I just LOVE Jesus, don’t you!!!

I will be the one in the blue suit; white shirt and red tie about 50 rows back so watch for me. You might see me in the audience when the camera pans the assembly, I should be easy to spot, tall, dark and handsome in a blue suit.

Stop it Cru, no it’s not true that I should be wearing the white jump suit with all the white straps securely fastened.

I will try and find time to continue posting while in Salt Lake City if time and the Spirit allows. OH NO, look at the time, I had better get going or I’m going to miss the boat.

May God be with you until we meet again!

Always and forever, LDSTrue!

See my new thread on Mormon growth. There are only about 4 million active Mormons. Check it out and please provide a response. And, have a safe trip.

[Bill the Cat]

Hey BtC: First and foremost! Thank you for your service to our Country,

It truly has been a pleasure to serve my country. I recommend it for just about everyone.


I was a Sergeant in the Army Reserves and ran the portable laundry unit.

Weird. Part of my job in Base Services is Field Laundry. I love those diesel powered dryers. makes your close smell so good...:eww:



Here I believe Paul is referring to the Salvation of Mankind and not the foundation of His Church. I believe Paul is teaching that without Jesus Christ, there would not be Salvation for Man.

:hrm: when we are saved, we enter the Church. The foundation is Jesus and we must declare that foundation true in order to be saved. The declaration is what builds the church, and what it is built upon.


It is true and I agree with you when you state that Jesus Christ is Lord and taking that declaration to the world was and is one of the most important missions of the Church. However, Jesus has declared for all exactly what the foundation of His Church is made of and it is and was not a “declaration” but instead was revelation. Here is proof:

Matt. 16: 15 –16
15 “he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God.
17 “ And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven.
18 “And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell (“shall”) not prevail against it”.



But the revelation was declared by Peter and praised by Jesus. All who come to salvation receive this revelation from the Father and are saved when they declare it. It's just a different way of saying we are saved by grace through faith. The Church is built on both the revelation of who God is and our declaring it.


Some say the scripture in reality actually refers to both the Church and Heaven sent revelation. Some say that Jesus was addressing the fact that Peter received his knowledge and testimony that Jesus is the Son of God by revelation from God and the meaning of “shall not prevail against it” is actually refering to “the gates of hell” will not prevail against true Heaven sent truthful revalation. (I am inclined to go along with the sum thereof!)

Every commentator I have read and every early Church father reads this as the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church proper. The Church is what Satan is out to destroy, not revelation, which he knows he can't do anything about.


Hell with all its lies and deception will not ultimately prevail against the truth reveled from Heaven by and through the Holy Ghost, the conveyor of truth. Have you heard anything about this or is that a new concept for you to consider?

New concept in relation to this passage.


Jesus said the foundation of His Church is revelation. Isn’t it obvious that Jesus is talking about the fact that His Father revealed it unto Simon Bar-jona (AKA the rock) the fact that Jesus was “the Christ the Son of the Living God” and not “flesh and blood”.

The foundation of the Church is THIS SPECIFIC revelation, not revelation in general, and Peter's response to this revelation.


Besides, how could/can satan and his devils stop Father from giving revelation to Man. I admit they try with angry mobs with evil intent utilizing crosses and six guns a' blasing, however, Father always finds a way to replace those martyerd and restore His revelations in the end for the end.

Nice tie in there. But it still doesn't negate what the church was built on neither does it negate the fact that this very revelation has been standing strong for nearly 2000 years. Or are you going to rephrase that statement to say that after the original martyrs, Father couldn't figure out how to replace the martyrs for almost 1800 years?



Perhaps it says that in BtC: 1:1 “the gates of hell (“would”) not prevail against the church”.

However, I quote: Matt. 16:18 “And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell (“shall”) not prevail against the church”.

What does your scientific “scripture exegesis” tell you the difference is between your “would” and Jesus’ use of the word “shall”? Is there a discernable difference between the term you used and the term Jesus used?

No difference. The Greek word is ou which is an absolute negative.



Were you just offering your personal interpretation or did you assume you were quoting scripture verbatim? Could the difference change the true meaning of the scripture when you substitute your “would” for the “shall” that Jesus actually said. Is that why you changed the word or is it that you are unaware that there could be a big difference.

Actually I was using the NASB's translation of this passage but putting the will in the past perfect tense.


“Shall” synonyms = be possible, might, be conceivable, be within reach, may.

Your BtC: 1:1 use of “would” implies that the “gates of hell” have no chance and yet Jesus’ use of the word “shall” appears to give hope to those gates.

There is no hope, as the Greek shows. Maybe you need to download esword and get some of the addons www.e-sword.net It is the best free Bible program out there IMHO.


Jesus use of “shall” implies that the gates (satan and his entourage of devils) are going to put up quite a struggle. In fact, their efforts to confuse, destroy and conquer may bring victory for them within reach and it is conceivable and may be possible that they just might Heaven forbid …win, else, why would Jesus use the term? Was the word “would” not in use at the time and not available to Jesus at the time? I think not!

Jesus didn't speak English, and neither did Matthew write in English.


If Jesus wanted to quote BtC: 1:1 and use “would” instead of “shall” He could have easily done so and would have if He had wanted.

:ahem:


“Shall” seems to imply that several righteous battles will be won and several righteous battles will be lost. Each time a Apostle and/or Prophet is lost to any angry Government or half witted red necked angry out of their mind moron mob a battle is lost. “Shall” seems to indicate and imply that though there will be several righteous battles lost, eventually the war will be won by Jesus, notwithstanding at great cost.

:ahem: again. You think that an Apostle dying was a loss? God was still perfectly in control and knows exactly when each of us will breathe our last. Death is not a defeat, for it has lost its sting.


It is not my intention to prove BtC: 1:1 is false, or not scriptural. However, you must know how demanding “scripture exegesis” is and what the penalties are for failing to observe scientific biblical interpretation. Believe me, I have been duly warned and I do not want another severe lashing from him. It hurt! (Are your ears itching Trout?)

But you are not using sound exegetical method. You should have at least looked at what the Greek said here before you wrongly spoke. My exegesis of this passage is rock solid (:brow:) and your misdirected attempt to differentiate between 2 English words that are not at odds with the original text shows how desperate the LDS position is. For the LDS position to be true, the gates of hell prevailed against the "revelation" from Father for 1800 years, which you already denied was possible because, and I quote, "Father always finds a way to replace those martyerd and restore His revelations in the end for the end".



On to Bill the Cat: 2:2

Quote: BtC: “The foundation of the church is the declaration that Jesus Christ is Lord”.

BtC: Perhaps in Bill the Cat 2:2 it states: “The foundation of the Church is the declaration that Jesus Christ is Lord”. However, …

I like what you said as it sounds really good! Normally, I would not disagree as by now you know that I detest contention and look for every opportunity to agree with my opponent. There have been few exceptions to that contentious statement until now!

Look what I have found in the Bible concerning a foundation scripture.

Eph 2:20 “And are built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone”.
Also:
Rev. 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”.

It appears that Apostles are the “foundation” of the Jesus’ Church and one of their very important if not foundational responsibilities is to declare that “Jesus Christ is Lord”.


Yet, to be an Apostle, they had to declare Jesus Christ as Lord. The church is built up by this declaration. Each new brick is a new soul that declared the very same thing that Peter declared. It is the declaration that adds to the Church, and this declaration was necessary to add the Apostles as the foundation of the Church.


Besides, you provided scripture on the subject which confirms the fact that Apostles are the foundation as they came first. You must agree, it was the Apostles who then appointed prophets, teachers, etc.

Incorrect. Apostles appointed Deacons and Pastors. Nowhere does it say that they appointed prophets, and in fact, contrary to LDS belief, prophets could be women.


It appears that without “first Apostles” you would not have the others, hence, the statement “foundation of Apostles”.

Of course not, because the FIRST Apostles were responsible for the growth of the primitive Church. But notice Paul is not listing offices here (1 Cor 12:28), because miracles are not an office, nor is speaking in tongues.


Yeh, I know, there are 15 on the earth today based in Salt Lake City.

:ahem: wishful thinking...




Are they looking over their shoulders for any half witted red necks begining to get angry at them as they assemble with their six-shooters an cans of black paint. You had better warn them of the possibilities?


Is that what marks a prophet? I think not.



But do you have the whole body as mentioned in 1 Cor. 12: 12, & 14-18?


Not sure why you would ask such a rhetorical question. The whole Body is made of all those who are united in the Biblical Christ.


I ask you, what came first in the New Testament Church, the Apostle or the declaration? (I know all about John the Baptist and the others but you know what I mean. That is why I said “Church”. John the Baptist and the others were not part of the Apostolic Church. I am not referring to anyone making that declaration before Jesus laid hands on the disciples and called the twelve foundational Apostles.) Is it not required that you have someone to make the declaration before a declaration can be made.

The Apostles were not called Apostles (One sent forth) until they were commissioned prior to the ascension, so the declaration came first. You must be saved (declare Jesus as Lord) before you can be sent.


I don’t disagree one scintilla with your “declaration”. It’s just that I’m concerned about the fact that you are unaware of your position and you are standing on a sand hill when you say it.

:rofl: I stand on 2000 years of history and the original languages, and you stand by 200 and the King James Version. Whose position is sturdy and whose is not?



Your opinion, attitude and reflections toward Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are very sandy, you know gritty and gruff.

No, it is Biblical. Heresy has no place in the true Church



Considering Joseph Smith was standing on the Rock and the Church is now in the top of the mountains built upon that same Rock.

Joseph was standing on his own megalomania and fell because of it. The fact that the church was built in Salt Lake City in the Rockies is inconsequential because God's true chosen land is Jerusalem and Israel, not Utah.


Here you are standing on a sand hill proclaiming the same thing I am only your position is on a sand hill and I am on the Rock. It would be better for you if you too were standing on the Rock in the top of the mountains while you make your “declaration”. Rock is always better to stand on than a sand hill and certainly makes a better “foundation” for your declaration.

Sorry, deny it all you want, but I am assured that my position is firm on the Rock of the historical Jesus Christ, and yours is on the shifting dogma (sand) of Joseph Smith

H
ey BtC, look what I found in the Bible: (Isaiah 2:2)

“And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORDS’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it”. (This cannot be a reference to the coming of the Lord as we are still in the last days and the last days will be over when He comes, right?)

This refers to Jerusalem. Read verse 1.

Isa 2
1 The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and JERUSALEM




Remember when the Winter Olympics were held in Salt Lake City “IN THE TOP OF THE MOUNTAINS” and “ALL NATIONS FLOWED UNTO IT”. WOW!!! Isaiah surely saw our day! It is a glorious time to be alive!!! The original descipiles have nothing on us! Well OK, maybe a personal contact and conversation with Jesus but that is all.


I thought I asked you to not do that while I was drinking water at my desk...:brood:


Here we are in the last days with the mountain of the LORD’s house established in Salt Lake City in the top of the mountains and all “nations” did flow unto it. UH OH! BtC, it is later than we think! Say BtC, what more solid proof do you need? Isaiah surely saw our day and our Church in Salt Lake City. The welcome mat is out and you and your friends are always welcome.
You may doubt me but Isaiah was sure and true so how about you?


Yup, he was sure about JERUSALEM, not Utah... Get off that sinking ship while you can...
Always LDSTrue!


PS: BtC: For your clarification, when I mention that God does not use unrighteous men to carry out His righteous judgements, which are considered His righteous indignation, I am referencing false Christ’s, false prophets, and wolves which are mentioned in the New Testament.

My point was, where is their untimely demise recorded? Their demise is not recorded and that was my point. Besides perhaps John, (he doesn’t count in this example) which one the original Apostles lived to die of old age? NONE, and that was/is my point.

I already quoted 2 false prophets in the OT who had their demise recorded.


The New Testament records Jesus’ establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ and we are talking about Joseph Smith restoring that same Church that Jesus established in the New Testament with His Apostles etc. It would appear that if you are truly an Apostle of Jesus Christ you will not die of old age regardless of the century you are living in. Satan and his mobs will see to it regardless of the century!

The Church has survived just fine, and there was nothing to restore. Apostolic gifts (showed by Paul in 1 Cor) have survived and are signs of the Holy Spirit's activity.


I am comparing the events recorded in the New Testament with the restoration of Jesus’ Church in these latter days.

Apples and oranges though. And there was nothing that needed restoring.


I am aware of your Old Testament examples and did not consider them pertinent as they did not pertain to the New Testament Church and the treatment of, and revelations to, the Apostles, His Church and His Church restored.

How many Apostles' deaths are recorded in the NT? And if the mark of an Apostle is dying young, then I guess Hinckley's out...

[LDSTrue]

Hey BtC

This is your friendly Mormon taking a small moment and reporting in from Salt Lake City, Utah.

Bill the Cat:
I stand on 2000 years of history and the original languages, and you stand by 200 and the King James Version. Whose position is sturdy and whose is not?


Wrong BtC! Right BtC!

Which is it you ask? Please allow me to explain.

You are correct when you say I “stand by 200 and the King James Version” if you mean that I am SUPPORTED by the KJV and the Apostles and Prophets therein. Somehow I don’t think you do.

Buuuutttt!!!!

You are wrong when you say I “STAND by 200 (years) and the King James Version”, if you mean that is my only foundation because I STAND on REVELATION!

Revelation from the Holy Ghost is my Rock (besides Jesus of course) and REVELATION is my FOUNDATION and not your “sound exegetical method. I would not trade my old friend The Holy Ghost (aka HG) in for a ton of your method! No make that 10 to the millionth power. No make that 10 to the …!

You get my point I hope, revelation from the Holy Ghost is PRICELESS and trumps anything and everything as it was Him that revealed all the originals that have now been copied. Some accurate and some not so accurate.

My foundation is revelation. Without revelation I would not know Jesus, for the Father reveals Him and it is Jesus that then reveals the Father and it is the Holy Ghost that then testifies of them both. Without the Holy Ghost (aka HG) revealing (revelation) your declaration to be true to the listener your pronouncement would “be as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal” I’m afraid.

Revelation is the key (foundation) to understanding the scriptures and how to apply the gospel in ones life. Without personal revelation from Father no one would know Jesus nor could they fully understand certain doctrine buried within the scriptures.

It ist the Holy Ghost who determines if and when (depending on who is and how sincere they are when seeking, knocking, and attempting to open) He reveals the true message within. It is one of His most important duties and goes hand in hand with His testifying.

Bill the Cat
“But you are not using sound exegetical method”.

BINGO, I’m delighted you noticed, for I am using my old friend the Holy Ghost (aka HG) and He is revealing to me the true intent and meaning of the verses. Thank you for noticing! That is proof that at the very least we are communicating. There is hope and where there is…!

Bill the Cat:
Jesus didn't speak English, and neither did Matthew write in English.

I know, but the Holy Ghost DOES!!! (aka HG) (aka my Old Friend)!!!!!!!!!!

I must attend to business now, but I shall return. Yes Cru, that is a warning!!!

LDSTrue

Ps: You say BtC:
There is no hope, as the Greek shows. Maybe you need to download esword and get some of the addons www.e-sword.net It is the best free Bible program out there IMHO.

I say: BtC, does the Holy Ghost know Greek and can He translate it for me? I have proven that I understand the Scriptures without ever speaking a word of Greek and the Holy Ghost is here by my side translating the meanings and intent for me.

No thanks. with a friend like the Holy Ghost who needs e-sword. I appreciate the offer, don’t think I don’t, it just that I’ve got it covered. Thanks anyway!

[LDSTrue]

Hey Bill the Cat and Crusader,

Here I am in Salt Lake City in the top of the mountains enjoying the view. From here you can see forever and it looks celestial as far as the eye can see. I wish you all could be here now with a clear vision and contemplating with me the incredible blessings our Father and Jesus has in store for those who know, love, and obey Them. Maybe some day you will be, I have hope which leads to faith, which leads to miracles.

Why am I here on Tweb today and what is this meeting all about you ask, well time is precious but the Spirit inspired so I must obey and make time. The Spirit and I go back a long way and we are what I consider to be old friends.

The Spirit said He would make it worth my time and the time you invest to be here in attendance as well. If I can’t trust Him whom can I turn to for the truth about such things? What’s that Cru, right, nobody! Cru has it right when she says nobody can identify spiritual truth without Him in attendance and He promised to be here tonight, so lets get started. We have a lot of ground to cover.

Before we officially open this meeting, I would like to take a few minutes and introduce our celebrity guests. We have been extremely blessed to have three very distinguished performers in attendance today. It is my privilege to introduce to you first someone you know quite well, sitting center stage Mr. Stevie Wonder. On his right is someone I think you will all recognize as one of the most popular Country Western singers of all time, Mr. Ronnie Milsap. And last but not least sitting to the left of Stevie Wonder is one of the most popular opera singers in our day, the famous Italian Tenor Mr. Andrea Bocelli’. As you can see, we are all in for a treat considering who is in attendance and the potential of their contribution.

I will explain their attendance at this meeting shortly if I have to and you will agree with me later that their contribution will prove to be valuable. However, to some it may become obvious as we go along just what their attendance here today could mean. If you are one of the perceptive ones and are able to deduce their involvement please keep it to yourself. Please don’t spoil it for your neighbor, please keep it quite until the end of the program today.
I would prefer our celebrities in attendance be kept under wraps and out of sight as long as possible due to the potential crowds that would obviously assemble.

Please hold your thoughts and comments until the end of the program as I have set aside plenty of time at the conclusion of this meeting for your comments. Is everybody her in agreement? Please show your consent by the raised hand, those opposed, none, good lets get started.

I want to begin our meeting today by asking both you Crusader (Cru) and you Bill the Cat (BtC) a simple question that will only require a simple yes or no.

Have either one of you ever been out West to a Dude Ranch?

If either of you have, did you have an opportunity to interact with any of the ranch animals?

You might think these are strange question and have no possible connection with any of your previous posts but I beg your patience for a few long minutes. (Remember, I would appreciate your undivided attention for at least as long as it takes me to compile, edit and post my remarks.)

I will begin by telling you a true story; Hey wait Cru, where do you think you’re going, please stay and sit down. One of your previous posts is half the reason we are meeting here today so please take your seat and stay awhile. Don’t worry, this is a true story and I promise I won’t mention anything abut anything shiny this time.

The reason for the Dude Ranch question is because I have the privilege of knowing a couple of dudes that have a ranch in Colorado, located in one of the most beautiful settings in the state. Lakes and rivers abound, green pastures and hay fields as far as the eye can see, a pond stocked and full of trout, exceptional out-buildings and a silo converted into a 30 foot tall lookout reading room that you can retire to for solitude. These dudes are truly fortunate, the Lord has truly and obviously blessed their amazing skills and Herculean efforts. For the purposes of this story, which is absolutely true, I will call one of my friends the Mr. Senior Dude and the other would then naturally be the junior dude.

I have been extremely fortunate to get to know these dudes over the years and I get an occasional invite to come and visit them at their amazing ranch. A couple of years ago, one of my visits in late summer happened to correspond with their season to take certain livestock to auction. The senior dude was in charge of the task as the junior dude left the state for one of his impulsive reasons and was not available to assist. His absence left Mr. Senior Dude short handed.

Upon discovering the absence of the junior dude I happily volunteered my services, limited as they were, given that I wanted a chance to earn my keep and act, look and smell like a real rancher. The Mr. Senior Dude relented and accepted my offer and the plans were set for the following morning. Can you imagine my excitement; I could hardly go to sleep that night!

We arose early and after a hearty ranch breakfast began the task of getting everything ready and in place for our work that day. We wanted to get the livestock penned and the shoot ready for the animals to be loaded into the truck, What’s that Cru, thank you, you’re right, I have yet to mention what kind of livestock we were planning to take to auction.

I wont make you guess, it was the time of the year ranchers take their sheep to auction and sell the ones they do not plan on keeping through the winter. That’s’ right, little ol’ sheep. Remember, this is a true story, I swear on a stack of Bibles mixed with some Books of Mormon and a few Doctrine and Covenants so you know I aint lying. Besides, when have I ever lied to anyone in this audience? Cru, you have to let go of that shinny incidence. It was my innocent attempt at defining reality.

I could be a little off, but my best guess is that the livestock that day consisted of about 15 ewes, (mommy sheep) 10 very healthy lambs weighing 75 to 95 pounds each and one ram, all to be auctioned off that glorious day.

The senior dude and I held our strategy session and had it all figured out. We would load the mommies (that’s not rancher talk from Mr. Senior Dude but my own expression) first and then her lamb, that way the lamb should follow its mommy out of the pen, up the 15 foot shoot and into the waiting truck. You know what they say about the best-laid plans of mice and men don’t you?

That’s right, our plan did not work, the mommy would leave the pen and enter the shoot then stop dead in her tracks. With considerable effort on our part, we would get her to move along up the shoot and into the truck. However, the lamb would not and did not willingly follow. In fact, the lamb ran the other way circling the holding pen and was much more frightened now without its mommy, making them almost impossible to catch. In fact, it would have been impossible had we not had them in the holding pen first before attempting to load them into the shoot. (That is a ranchers secret I am revealing)

Hey Trout, it’s good to see you. I’m glad you decided to drop by. We would appreciate your opinion as your Avatar indicates you might know something about ranching and livestock. Have you ever tried to rope and lead a lamb anywhere? If so, have you been successful at getting them to follow without a struggle? We are privileged to have someone of Trout’s stature here in attendance with us today and I would like to draw on his experience with ranch animals if he will allow. Please feel free to interrupt at any time Trout and contribute as inspired. Your Avatar indicates that you may be the only true rancher here with us today with any first hand knowledge of livestock.

We discovered fast that plan A was not going to work as well as we had hoped so we immediately went to plan B. Plan B was to get all the mommies into the truck and then have them call out to their lambs to join them in the nice cozy inviting truck. I’ll bet you can guess the outcome of plan B, that’s right, plan B didn’t work any better than plan A. However, it was not for lack of the mothers calling their lambs, as they were baa baa baaing constantly and loudly in unison for their lambs to join them.

OK, it’s on to plan C. We didn’t plan on having to have a plan C so we had to improvise on the run, as in running in circles chasing sweet little ol’ innocent lambs around the pen and acted as though they were going to be slaughtered for sure.

So now we are left with plan C that was made up on the run out of desperation. Plan C was to capture them and then get them up the 15-foot loading shoot any way we could. We are now talking about catching, picking up or dragging lambs weighing 75 to 95 pounds of live kicking, screaming, frightened, running for their lives lambs absolutely determined not to get captured.

Did I say WE? I guess it was actually Mr. Senior Dude who was doing all the chasing, lifting and dragging while I guarded the shoot gate, if truth be known. Sorry Mr. Senior Dude, I really didn’t mean to imply that I was in any way responsible for the success of the task. If truth be known I manned the gate in the shoot to insure it closed properly so the sheep would not go back down the shoot or try and turn around inside the shoot, which they did anyway. From now on whenever you see (we), substitute (he) meaning Mr. Senior Dude.

After we successfully loaded the first lamb in that fashion you can imagine the scene as Mr. Senior Dude approached the remaining lambs. As he moved towards them they would scatter and the only way to catch them was to carefully dive on them and then literally pick them up and push-drag them up the shoot to their mommies. I was on the drag end.

We did all of this while dodging the Ram that was looking on in disgust and getting angrier and more irritated by the minute. Once he even tried to charge us (him) and head butt us (him) a few times. (him = Mr. Denior Dude) We were finally able to successfully load the Ram with the others in the truck. Once he was loaded and the tailgate was securely latched we then set off for the auction where we were glad to unload the unruly bunch a’ ranch critters. You can believe me when I say all this ranching stuff is smelly hard work!

That was some experience and I really appreciated the fact that Mr. Senior Dude allowed me to participate in such an invigorating and fun activity. At the time it did not seem like a privilege or blessing and neither of us would be anxious to repeat it in the very near future. Neither did I realize at the time just how valuable a lesson it was going to turn out to be and the implications it would have when discussing the gospel on the Tweb.

The moral of the story is: According to my first hand experience and the experience of Mr. Senior Dude, it is a purely false notion for anyone to think that you can lead a lamb to join his mother in the warm cozy truck without a struggle.

Can every one see and agree with the moral of this story? Good, everyone sees the point and agrees.

According to my absolutely true experience related above, can every one in attendance here today plainly see that it is a absolute folly to think you can get a lamb led or otherwise to voluntarily enter where they perceive danger.

All those who can plainly see that leading a lamb into danger is folly please raise their hands. Good, every one in the room agrees and sees that it is folly to assume that a lamb will go quietly anywhere when they sense danger, real or imagined, mommy or no mommy.

What’s that BtC?
Yes you’re right, there have been a few exceptions recorded in history, however, those few lamb exceptions were forewarned and expected to be lead into danger. They knew what was in store for them once they were captured, tried, and given cause for their death by the ruling authority and were put to death after they were allowed to prepare themselves.

To prove my point, I quote you quoting…

http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/fox101.htm
X. Paul
Paul, the apostle, who before was called Saul, after his great travail and unspeakable labors in promoting the Gospel of Christ, suffered also in this first persecution under Nero. Abdias, declareth that under his execution Nero sent two of his esquires, Ferega and Parthemius, to bring him word of his death. They, coming to Paul instructing the people, desired him to pray for them, that they might believe; who told them that shortly after they should believe and be baptised at His sepulcher. This done, the soldiers came and led him out of the city to the place of execution, where he, after his prayers made, gave his neck to the sword.

IX. Peter
Among many other saints, the blessed apostle Peter was condemned to death, and crucified, as some do write, at Rome; albeit some others, and not without cause, do doubt thereof. Hegesippus saith that Nero sought matter against Peter to put him to death; which, when the people perceived, they entreated Peter with much ado that he would fly the city. Peter, through their importunity at length persuaded, prepared himself to avoid. But, coming to the gate, he saw the Lord Christ come to meet him, to whom he, worshipping, said, "Lord, whither dost Thou go?" To whom He answered and said, "I am come again to be crucified." By this, Peter, perceiving his suffering to be understood, returned into the city. Jerome saith that he was crucified, his head being down and his feet upward, himself so requiring, because he was (he said) unworthy to be crucified after the same form and manner as the Lord was.

Not quite the same as the Mormon lamb BtC but nice try. No mobs shooting through jail house doors and windows there. Some advance notice would have helped and a trial or something would have been polite and could have helped him prepare. Nope, not quite the same as our lamb Joseph Smith BtC. Your comparison has “been weighed in the balance and found lacking” without substance or weight.

I will now attempt to tie my remarks above in with the comments both you Cru and you BtC have made concerning a particular and special Mormon lamb.

I first want to thank both Cru and BtC for providing such a wonderful segue into a very important topic that is related to the above story as well as the one that is next on the agenda.

Because it is such an important subject, and Cru and BtC did such a fine job of bringing it to our attention, I think we should all stand and give them a standing ovation for such a fine job of expressing their true heartfelt feelings.

Cru, please get down off that chair, I said standing ovation not get on the chair and give an oration. Look around Cru, this is not the Oprah Winfry show and you are not Tom Cruise. Would somebody go set next to here and make sure she doesn’t do that again. Thank you Trout!

As mentioned, I will now attempt to tie my story above in with several comments both you Cru and you BtC have made concerning our modern day lamb Joseph Smith. I have copied the following posts authored by the both of you, which mentioned a lamb. After you have reviewed them I will then proceed to use them as examples in an effort to refute and rebut your dubious impressions and conclusions.

Ladies first: Quote Crusader:
And let's not forget that it was Emma who had to run after the Smith boys and haul them back to face the music after they took off across the river and hid!!!!!

Quote Bill the Cat:
No. You misread my intent. Your church touts him as an innocent man, “a lamb led to the slaughter”,


OK, lets match what both of you said with MY real, true to life, honest to goodness, matter of fact true lamb experience. Remember, I am still on that stack of Bibles combined mixed with...

Crusader says: “And let's not forget that it was Emma who had to run after the Smith boys and haul them back…”

My Real Lambs Example: “We are now talking about catching, picking up or dragging lambs weighing 75 to 95 pounds of live kicking, screaming (as lambs will do), frightened, running for their lives lambs absolutely determined not to get captured.”

Sounds the same to me Cru. Can everyone here see the accuracy of the comparison? Yes, good, every one here admits they can see the obvious resemblance between Joseph Smiths’ acts and lambs’ reactions.

Therefore the Universal Undisputable Conclusion is: “The Smith boys” acted exactly as real life lambs. Ergo, it is correct to stipulate that Joseph Smith was a proverbial lamb.

SCORE: LDSTrue verses Crusader – LDSTrue 1 Cru. O

Next we have BtC’s comment: “…Your church touts him as an innocent man, “a lamb led to the slaughter”,

I have it on very good authority BtC (Crusader???) that Joseph Smith was led back to turn himself in by his wife. He did not charge back guns a’ blazing but in Cru’s own words “Emma who had to run after the Smith boys and haul them back to face the music”. (Cru, since when did “music” involve cold-blooded murder???)

Therefore the Universal Undisputable Conclusion is: Joseph Smith was lead back by Emma, was NOT put on trail and found guilty by a judge or jury of his peers, ergo, he was INNOCENT, led back by his wife Emma, and then he was SLAUGHTERED while in custody and under the protection of the local law enforcement.

SCORE: LDSTrue verses Bill the Cat - LDSTrue 1 BtC O

Game Over: LDSTrue 2 Opposition O. 2 ZIP wins every time!

Can every one see the score? Once more, does every one here including our celebrities agree that they can see, well, to put it into BtC own words, that Joseph Smith was “a lamb led to the slaughter”, good, every one in attendance agrees and sees my point, case closed. NEXT!

I must cut this short as I still have work to do here in the shadow of the Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in SLC, UT.

May God be with you till we meet again! (One of my favs’)

Always and Forever LDSTrue!

PS: I wanted to have one but ran out of time. Maybe next time if there’s time.

[Bill the Cat]

What a beautiful story, too bad it's nonsense. Your church is not quoting any live lamb capture you went on, but Joseph's favorite source AGAIN, Isaiah

Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed and He was afflicted,Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,So He did not open His mouth.

This is about Jesus. So by your analogy, Jesus ran and kicked and screamed at His impending execution. That is ridiculous and is again misplaced. You are losing and losing badly in your attempted defense of Joseph's martyrdom. You may want to reconsider whether to continue as you keep embarassing yourself...

[LDSTrue]

Hey Crusader,

I have a few minutes to spare and I wanted to use the time to answer a few of your false charges, false impressions and false statements.

False! False! False! All the time it is false with you! TRY True, True, True next time. True is refreshing and brings a smile to ones face and lifts the spirit.

QUOTE Crusader:
Smith asked his brother, Hyram, if he wanted to return, and it was Hyram who made the decision to go back, not his feckless brother. Joseph finally agreed, but told Hyram that they would be butchered if they returned.

And you said he wasn’t a Prophet! Your own words out of your own mouth confirms that he was a Prophet and received revelation!. You state that Joseph stated, “Joseph finally agreed, but told Hyram that they would be butchered if they returned”.

They returned (like Lambs) and they were “BUTCHERED” on the spot.

Joseph received revelation! Case closed.

With a little insight Cru you wouldn’t need me to always point out your mistakes. You could find them on your own. Practice “true unbiased insight” over and over and over and …!


QUOTE Crusader:
And the Lord wasn't fleeing from committing a felony crime!


Cru, your remark insinuates that Joseph Smith was a felon. Is that true?

Is their solid proof that he personally committed a felonious crime?

Do you know what “PROOF” is and its definition???

You may have proof that he was charged but since when does charged equal proof and condemnation??? He was charged so it was OK to buthcer him???

Anyone can charge anyone with a crime but since when is a charge determined or considered to be a final convection???

You are convicted by a judge or jury and not the hostile anti-audience seeking innocent blood. Do you want the rules you’re applying here and now to ever apply to you??? :eek: NO, I didn’t think so!

Would you want to be called a felon without an appropriate trial and an opportunity to face your accusers?

Was Joseph Smith pronounced guilty of a felony in a court of law? Was he given a fair chance to prove himself innocent before a Judge and Jury or was he shot to death before his trial and verdict? You're right, he was shot to death as in murdered - killed before his legal trial and jury verdict.

It is my understanding that the Constitution of the United States of America provides personal ultimate protection against a false charge and provides the falsely accused with remedies and the false accuser with stiff penalties.
I repeat, “false accuser with stiff penalties” Cru! Does the term "remedies" cause cold chills to go down your spine and scare you?

Where are the court records proving Joseph Smith was ever guilty of your felony charge against him? Are you ready willing and able to provide the court records or is just the fact that his death certificate is on file is reason enough for your celebration?

Crusader, have you ever in your life heard this statement? Could it ever apply to you?


“INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY”


Please look it up, you may need it some day. You should want to be prepared to use it when you prepare your defense. With enough practice you might get it right.

Ya’ know Cru, if people are despised and judged as felons because of their personalities or they way they communicate and the words they use then we are all felons and despised. You just can’t please all the people all the time, now can you? I'll bet you don't even try you best do you.

QUOTE Crusader:
Mormons seem to hold Smith in higher regard than the Lord.


Get a clew Cru: :sigh: I will contrast your obviously incorrect statement and impression and compare it with one just as bizarre and obviously incorrect.


Israelites seem to hold Moses in higher regard than they do the LORD.


Ex. 13:3 “And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by the strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place; …”

Ex. 14:31 “And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses”.

I will correct your incorrect impression by stating and re-stating these scriptures to reflect the true and honest feeling most “Mormons” hold toward the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"And Joseph Smith said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from …, out of the house of bondage; for by the strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place; …"

"And the Mormons saw that great work which the LORD did …: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Joseph Smith”.

There Cru, does that help? I hope the above will relieve you of your obviously incorrect impressions with regard to how “Mormons” regard “Smith”.

Due to all the above Cru, you should never again seek to utter untrue and incorrect remarks regarding "Mormons" " "Joseph Smith" or "LDSTrue"!

Being LDSTrue.

PS: Hey Cru, I just had a terrabile thought. OH NO! What if your Brownies and Chocolate Chip Cookies are sitting on my doorstep at home and here I am in Salt Lake City. How tragic is that thought! ANTS! OH NO, NOT THE ANTS!

Would you please send a second batch to my home to arrive on Wednesday so I will be able to sample a fresh batch. I am the biggest non-denominational taster/sampler you know. Don't worry, I appreciate and eat the stale ones too. :wink:

[Bill the Cat]

Joseph died before he could be tried for ordering the illegal destruction of the printing press. But his actions were still illegal, and his imprisonment was legal.


It is interesting to note that James B. Allen, who serves as Assistant Church Historian under Leonard Arrington acknowledges that Joseph Smith "acted illegally" when he destroyed the press: "...when Joseph Smith ordered the actual destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press he provided his enemies with a clearly legitimate means of arresting him for violation of the law. They seized upon this to inflame the public even more, and this led directly to the assassination. Some people maybe disturbed by the suggestion that Joseph Smith acted illegally in this instance, but it is important to understand that under the tense pressures of the times he, too, may have made a mistake." (Brigham Young University Today, March 1976, page 10)
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/clndest8.htm


By your argument, Hitler wasn't a felon either because he died before he was tried.

[LDSTrue]

Hey Bill the Cat,

Thank you for responding to my remarks.

QUOTE bill the Cat:
What a beautiful story,


Thank you BtC for your heartfelt remarks. I had you in mind when I wrote it and I’m thrilled to see that you enjoyed it.

“Beautiful” may be reaching a bit but I’ll accept your accolades none the less.

Doesn’t it go “beautiful is as beautiful does”? When you say it was a beautiful story aren’t you implying that I am beautiful too! Thank you! I would have preferred brilliant but you take what you can get in my situation here.

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
too bad it's nonsense.


OUCH!!! Hey BtC you just said you enjoyed it, and then THIS! That really hurts!

I thought you were kinder, gentler and nicer than Cursader. Wait a minute, are you the Hyde and she is the Jeckle? You both are beginning to sound alike. “Weird”!!!

That reminds me of a story I could tell about salt water and fresh water trying to come out of the same fountain. You see, I was on top of this mountain and …. “NONESENSE” you say, OK, I will just keep this one to myself and not bore you with it if that’s how you feel! I thought we were ...

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
Your church is not quoting any live lamb capture you went on, but Joseph's favorite source AGAIN, Isaiah


Bill the Cat
Scripture Verse:
Isaiah 53:7
"He was oppressed and He was afflicted,Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,So He did not open His mouth."

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
This is about Jesus.

BtC, I realize Isaiah is talking about Jesus in your scripture quote. Everybody in the entire Christian world does. What is your point, that Joseph isn't mentioned? I KNOW, Joseph isn't mentioned, so what! There are more than one lamb!

You act as if Joseph Smith said: Guys, you know that scripture in Isaiah referencing “He was oppressed and He was afflicted,” “a lamb that is led to slaughter” well, that scripture is a direct reference to me and not to Jesus. Guys I want you to tell the world that Isaiah saw me as a lamb and not Jesus.

Notice BtC that I made that up! Joseph Smith did not say or infer that ever!!!

BtC, this is what Joseph Smith actually said:


When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF ME - HE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD.” (D&C 135:4)

BtC you can get down off your high horse now and come back down to earth because Joseph Smith did not in any way, shape or fashion malign Jesus or Isaiah with his comment. Joseph did not mention either one nor did he quote scripture. It was his opinion, he had a right to have his opinion, and you have no right attempting to pour scorn on him due to his innocent remark.

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
Your church is not quoting any live lamb capture you went on

If our Church is quoting any one or any thing with regard to Joseph Smith’s comments it is Joseph Smiths comments quoted out of his own mouth which they have a right to do!

The quote out of the D&C does not indicate nor does it reference Joseph Smith’s source, so anything you come up with is pure conjecture.

IMHO, it was my Old Friend the Holy Ghost that inspired him to make that comment as it was the same Holy Ghost that inspired Isaiah to say those words in the first place. If you want to lay blame on some one go to the source and see how far you get blaming the Holy Ghost. He did it, blame Him!

If Mormons quote Joseph Smith, which is our right, it is of no business of yours!!! Go and find someone else guilty of using the term and attack them, maybe they will deserve it as we know just how atrocious it is to you to have "a lamb that is led to slaughter" utterd.

We can quote our Prophet all we want and we don’t need your permission to do so! Take your anger posing as counterfeit righteous indignation to the Lord in prayer and let Him take the burden off your shoulders.

If we are guilty and deserve punishment, He is much better than you at applying it so don't worry, the Lord will take care of those misquoting scripture in His own time and all by Himself. He is a mighty God!!!

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
You may want to reconsider whether to continue as you keep embarassing yourself...

How is telling you a true story embarrassing “yourself”? I helped out a friend in need and shared it with you and you call it embarrassing? Mr. Senior Dude called it considerate and was thankful. People will learn from me sharing my experience and just that fact alone trumps your opinion. Embarassed? NO!

And NO, BtC ,my analogy was the way Joseph Smith acted very similar to the Lambs Mr. Senior Dude and I encountered. I said nothing about Jesus.

However, I did adequately cover the possibility that you would bring Jesus or Peter or Paul as examples of submissive Lambs into this conversation when I addressed you in particular in my post. Did you skip over these paragraphs? Was it an innocent mistake? I hope it wasn't intentional.

I quote LDSTrue:
What’s that BtC?
Yes you’re right, there have been a few exceptions recorded in history, however, those few lamb exceptions were forewarned and expected to be lead into danger. They knew what was in store for them once they were captured, tried, and given cause for their death by the ruling authority and were put to death after they were allowed to prepare themselves.

Your examples do indicate that after our Father forewarns one (Jesus) and both the Holy Ghost and Jesus prepares and warns certain Apostles (Peter & Paul) exactly what to expect to have happen to them at the conclusion of their ministry, then it would be fair to say and conclude that they went to their death’s calmly and quietly as you have indicated.

Not quite the same as the Mormon Lamb BtC but nice try. No mobs shooting through jail house doors and windows there. Some advance notice would have helped and a trial or something would have been polite and could have helped him prepare. Nope, not quite the same as our lamb Joseph Smith BtC. Your comparison has “been weighed in the balance and found lacking” without substance or weight.

Thank you again for your concern.

LDSTrue Always!

PS: I noticed your remarks and wanted to address them now and include my rebuttal within this post. I hope you don't mind.

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
Joseph died before he could be tried for ordering the illegal destruction of the printing press. But his actions were still illegal, and his imprisonment was legal.

:sigh: “Here you go again” BtC, “died”??? DIED!!! Absolutely undeniable, unjustifiably shot to death by half-witted red-necked morons through a closed door and you call it “died”??? Did he pass quietly in the night "died" or was he shot to death with very noisy gunfire through a closed door "died".

:frown:“Here you go again” again BtC “But his actions were still illegal, and his imprisonment was legal.”

The person you are quoting to justify your opinion was not there then and did not testify at a trial and offer any proof. Therefore, you are using his opinion to convict an innocent man. Opinions rarely stand up in court and seldom convince a jury seeking proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof talks and opinions walk in a legitimate court with a judge and jury!

Joseph Smith’s actions were yet to be proven guilty by a jury of his peers. Again, there is no record of a conviction so his imprisonment on trumped up charges was not “legal”. Were you there BtC and did you witness his actions, is that why you are adamant regarding his guilt, are you an eye witness. Do you have proof we don’t know about? Can you produce it?

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
By your argument, Hitler wasn't a felon either because he died before he was tried.

Hey BtC, have you heard the latest?

The lets go to war despot, butcher, murderer, killer, gas as many Kerd’s as you can Sadam Husean is going on trial soon.

It’s a good thing Sadam isn’t accused (notice I didn’t say convicted of) of destroying a printing press. If so his jail cell would have been stormed and he would be lying on the floor dead by now. Some people just don’t realize how good they’ve got it.

Sadam Husean on trial and Joseph Smith martyred without a trial, is that justifiable BtC?:brood:

[Bill the Cat]

Hey Bill the Cat,

Thank you for responding to my remarks.

QUOTE bill the Cat:


Thank you BtC for your heartfelt remarks. I had you in mind when I wrote it and I’m thrilled to see that you enjoyed it.

“Beautiful” may be reaching a bit but I’ll accept your accolades none the less.

Doesn’t it go “beautiful is as beautiful does”? When you say it was a beautiful story aren’t you implying that I am beautiful too! Thank you! I would have preferred brilliant but you take what you can get in my situation here.

No, I think that your experience was rather cool. I love animals and I love visiting farms, petting zoos, etc. so it was a thing of beauty to me that you obviously enjoyed the natural setting you were in. There are some who never get that opportunity, and some that do and don't appreciate the beautiful world God made.


OUCH!!! Hey BtC you just said you enjoyed it, and then THIS! That really hurts!

I thought you were kinder, gentler and nicer than Cursader. Wait a minute, are you the Hyde and she is the Jeckle? You both are beginning to sound alike. “Weird”!!!

Nonsense was the wrong word. I am sorry. More like not useful for the topic I was discussing.


BtC, I realize Isaiah is talking about Jesus in your scripture quote. Everybody in the entire Christian world does. What is your point, that Joseph isn't mentioned? I KNOW, Joseph isn't mentioned, so what! There are more than one lamb!

In what context? Jesus is the only lamb that Isaiah is speaking of.


You act as if Joseph Smith said: Guys, you know that scripture in Isaiah referencing “He was oppressed and He was afflicted,” “a lamb that is led to slaughter” well, that scripture is a direct reference to me and not to Jesus.

No, you missed my point. I am asserting that Joseph was comparing his impending death to Jesus' by using a verse he knew was applied to Jesus.



Guys I want you to tell the world that Isaiah saw me as a lamb and not Jesus.

Notice BtC that I made that up! Joseph Smith did not say or infer that ever!!!


Neither did I say that he did.


BtC you can get down off your high horse now and come back down to earth because Joseph Smith did not in any way, shape or fashion malign Jesus or Isaiah with his comment. Joseph did not mention either one nor did he quote scripture. It was his opinion, he had a right to have his opinion, and you have no right attempting to pour scorn on him due to his innocent remark.

If you don't see Joseph's fascination with Isaiah, then you are totally blinded. He compared himself to Jesus more times than I care to quote.


If our Church is quoting any one or any thing with regard to Joseph Smith’s comments it is Joseph Smiths comments quoted out of his own mouth which they have a right to do!

Then don't gripe when we do too.


The quote out of the D&C does not indicate nor does it reference Joseph Smith’s source, so anything you come up with is pure conjecture.

Oh, you want to play that game? You have no evidence that he wasn't quoting Isaiah, which he was so fond of doing. Fact is, Mormons make the Joseph-Jesus connection all the time. In 1988, Ted Cannon, then director of the Mormon Visitor Centers at Carthage and Nauvoo, told reporter Doug Schorpp that Carthage "...holds the same significance...as Calvary holds for Christians all over the world" (Journal Star, Peoria, IL, Sunday, June 26, 1988 D3)


IMHO, it was my Old Friend the Holy Ghost that inspired him to make that comment as it was the same Holy Ghost that inspired Isaiah to say those words in the first place. If you want to lay blame on some one go to the source and see how far you get blaming the Holy Ghost. He did it, blame Him!

You wish. Joseph was contemptuous of the Church that has stood the test of time. Just like the gnostics, he claimed more knowledge and higher revelation.


If Mormons quote Joseph Smith, which is our right, it is of no business of yours!!! Go and find someone else guilty of using the term and attack them, maybe they will deserve it as we know just how atrocious it is to you to have "a lamb that is led to slaughter" utterd.

Context, my good man. Joseph had a messiah complex, and used a messianic verse to apply to himself (actually it was not heard by anyone else other than John Taylor, so it may not have even really been made). If it was genuine, the comment wasn't made in a vacuum.


We can quote our Prophet all we want and we don’t need your permission to do so! Take your anger posing as counterfeit righteous indignation to the Lord in prayer and let Him take the burden off your shoulders.

I'm not angry. Why do you insist that I am? I'm actually amused at some of your comments.


If we are guilty and deserve punishment, He is much better than you at applying it so don't worry, the Lord will take care of those misquoting scripture in His own time and all by Himself. He is a mighty God!!!

Sadly, that is all too true, and because of that, I feel so sorry for Mormons. But there is hope, and we are called to preach the truth to all in error.


How is telling you a true story embarrassing “yourself”?

All your posts up until now are what I am referring to. You don't answer the serious charges and take the less important ones and write a book.



I helped out a friend in need and shared it with you and you call it embarrassing? Mr. Senior Dude called it considerate and was thankful. People will learn from me sharing my experience and just that fact alone trumps your opinion. Embarassed? NO!

Good for you. I'm sure the exercise and fresh air was good for the lungs. I do envy you there...


And NO, BtC ,my analogy was the way Joseph Smith acted very similar to the Lambs Mr. Senior Dude and I encountered. I said nothing about Jesus.

So do you admit that Joseph's death was not anything like Jesus then, other than neither of them deserved death?


However, I did adequately cover the possibility that you would bring Jesus or Peter or Paul as examples of submissive Lambs into this conversation when I addressed you in particular in my post. Did you skip over these paragraphs? Was it an innocent mistake? I hope it wasn't intentional.


No, I saw what you posted. However, you attempted to draw a parallel between Joseph's death and the Apostles' deaths, and I showed you how they differed completely. Don't try to blur the two separate issues. Joseph's death compared to Christ's death is one, and your church makes that one. Your comparison of Joseph's death to the Apostles is another entirely.




:sigh: “Here you go again” BtC, “died”??? DIED!!! Absolutely undeniable, unjustifiably shot to death by half-witted red-necked morons through a closed door and you call it “died”??? Did he pass quietly in the night "died" or was he shot to death with very noisy gunfire through a closed door "died".

I also say Jesus died, so what's your problem?


:frown:“Here you go again” again BtC “But his actions were still illegal, and his imprisonment was legal
The person you are quoting to justify your opinion was not there then and did not testify at a trial and offer any proof. .”

I quote a Mormon historian.


Therefore, you are using his opinion to convict an innocent man.

You really think Joseph was innocent of the charges? Then you really are blinded. He died before he could stand trial.


Opinions rarely stand up in court and seldom convince a jury seeking proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof talks and opinions walk in a legitimate court with a judge and jury!

And the evidence was solidly against him. His order was written and it was illegal according to the legal statutes.



Joseph Smith’s actions were yet to be proven guilty by a jury of his peers.

Neither were Hitler's actions. Or for that matter, the mob that killed Joseph. Not a single one stood trial, so they, by your summation, were not guilty.



Again, there is no record of a conviction so his imprisonment on trumped up charges was not “legal”.

Trumped? He destroyed a printing press, the WHOLE thing. It is recorded as solid evidence. What if Orin Hatch ordered the total destruction of the UTLM? and forbid the Tanners from writing anything in Utah? Would that be legal?


Were you there BtC and did you witness his actions, is that why you are adamant regarding his guilt, are you an eye witness. Do you have proof we don’t know about? Can you produce it?

:yes: You should know by now that I don't make statements without at least SOMETHING to back it up.

Vilate Kimball, the wife of Heber C. Kimball and a faithful Mormon, in her description of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor wrote: "June 11th. Nauvoo was a scene of excitment last night. Some hundreds of the brethren turned out and burned the press of the opposite party (Letter by Vilate Kimball, as published in Life of Heber C. Kimball, p.350).


and from Joseph's own journal:

"About 8 p. m., the Marshal returned and reported that he had removed the press, type, printed paper, and fixtures into the street, and destroyed them. This was done because of the libelous and slanderous character of the paper.. The posse accompanied by some hundreds of the citizens, returned with the Marshal to the front of the Mansion, when I gave them a short address, and told them they had done right and that not a hair of their heads should be hurt for it; that they had executed the orders which were given me by the City Council; that I would never submit to have another libelous publication established in the city; that I did not care how many papers were printed in the city, if they would print the truth: but would submit to no libels or slanders from them. I then blessed them in the name of the Lord. This speech was loudly greeted by the assembly with three-times-three cheers. The posse and assembly then dispersed all in good order."
- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p.432


He admits to destroying the press, which was illegal. Admission of guilt from Joseph himself not good enough for you?


Hey BtC, have you heard the latest?

The lets go to war despot, butcher, murderer, killer, gas as many Kerd’s as you can Sadam Husean is going on trial soon.

Red herring....


It’s a good thing Sadam isn’t accused (notice I didn’t say convicted of) of destroying a printing press. If so his jail cell would have been stormed and he would be lying on the floor dead by now. Some people just don’t realize how good they’ve got it.

Oh brother. You ever heard of the Geneva Convention? If that weren't in effect, Sadaam would have never made it out of that hole he was hiding in. But the Law of Armed Conflict forbids us to kill an unarmed or surrendering combatant.



Sadam Husean on trial and Joseph Smith martyred without a trial, is that justifiable BtC?:brood:

Who said anything about justifiable? What happened to Joseph was wrong, and I have said that many times over, but for the Mormons to put his death on par with the death of Jesus and for you to compare it to the Apostles' deaths is wrong.

Joseph ran away from the arrest warrant (Jesus didn't), was legally charged and held (Jesus wasn't), and after using a smuggled firearm to angrily kill 2 of his attackers (Jesus stayed Peter's sword and healed one of his attackers), and even tried to abandon the surviving members of the group in the jail to escape his own death (Jesus had the means to escape but went willingly to His death).

[LDSTrue]

Hey from Salt Lake City Bill the Cat:

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
All your posts up until now are what I am referring to. You don't answer the serious charges and take the less important ones and write a book.

I’ll bet you wish you could do that! It takes skill and years of practice. Your envy is obvious and showing.

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
I also say Jesus died, so what's your problem?


IMHO, the term “died” should be reserved and applied to deaths other than those caused by killers, murderers, and butchers, for some reason. People die all types of deaths and it just seems to me that the terms killed, murdered, butchered, crucified, martyred, do not translate well into “died”.

"Died" does not seem to convey or signify the true tragedy and senseless death of those killed, murdered, butchered, crucified, martyred, to my ear. In my mind it does not denote the amount of senseless suffering or tragedy associated with those types of deaths.

The scriptures used explicit terms to record when Jesus and some of his Apostles were crucified and stoned; note it is not recorded that they just simply “died”.

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
“Trumped? He destroyed a printing press, the WHOLE thing. It is recorded as solid evidence. What if Orin Hatch ordered the total destruction of the UTLM? and forbid the Tanners from writing anything in Utah? Would that be legal?”

“When and where do we meet”! Hey, who said that? Get him out of here and throw his black paint can and six-shooter out with him! You’re not in Carthage anymore Alice.

We were better than them then and remain better than that today. We would never consider sanctioning such an atrocious act.

I guess it depends on the laws on the books and who is making the laws. Today we have laws that govern and punish one knowingly and intentionally publishing fantastic lies, slanderous and libel articles, and untrue damaging gossip.

If they did it in my town, they would be turned over to the jailers running the jail in Carthage, IL, USA and they had better pray the 1844 style justice system is bygone. I guess this is where cold-blooded murder gives way to liable lawsuits and remedies that kick in nowadays. Who said society hasn't progressed.



QUOTE LDSTrue:
“Do you have proof we don’t know about? Can you produce it?

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
He admits to destroying the press, which was illegal. Admission of guilt from Joseph himself not good enough for you?


Hey BtC, you misunderstood my request. I was requesting from you proof that he DID NOT send an order to destroy the printing press, NOT PROOF THAT HE DID! Help a guy out here! I don’t need you piling on! Did someone call “DOGPILE”?

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
for the Mormons to put his death on par with the death of Jesus and for you to compare it to the Apostles' deaths is wrong.


Does not these small changes make your statement a little more accurate: In the opinion of an anti-Mormon or IMO “for the Mormons to put his death on par with the death of Jesus and for you to compare it to the Apostles' deaths is wrong”.

There, that just sounds better to my ear and is in reality a much more accurate and true statement.

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
“Joseph … to angrily kill 2 of his attackers …”


Why do you continually try and slide that false assumption by?

I have already proven that he fired in self-defense and was not granted the time to begin to become angry with his killers prior to being shot down in cold-blood. Anger as you and Crusader well know is a warm-blooded condition and takes time and forethought to develop which Joseph was not granted by those half-witted red-necked morons. Soooooooo stoooooooop iiiiiiiit!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE Bill the Cat:
(Jesus stayed Peter's sword …)

Notice Peter didn’t stay Peter’s sword. Had Peter had a six-gun instead of a sword Jesus would have had to resurrect the dead and not just replace an ear. Some are from the mold of Peter and some are not. It is easy to tell who is to the discerning. Joseph and Peter had and have a lot in common (keys).

All this and I have yet to tackle your misleading statements regarding Jesus and His Israelite sheep. Next time I promise.

Thank you for your responses, I love responding!

Being LDSTrue!

[Nosnomis]

If you want an account of Joseph Smith's martyrdom, look here. (http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/ChrchHstryInst32502000/Chapters/ChrchHstryInst32502000_25.pdf) He was held at Carthage Jail for "treason" because he sent Nauvoo into martial law, and activated the legion in case the mobs tried attacking. His arrest for "treason" was not legal, and was only a ruse to keep him in jail long enough for the mobs to kill him.

[Bill the Cat]

IMHO, the term “died” should be reserved and applied to deaths other than those caused by killers, murderers, and butchers, for some reason. People die all types of deaths and it just seems to me that the terms killed, murdered, butchered, crucified, martyred, do not translate well into “died”.

Not my problem. It's a medical term that applies. Joseph died.


"Died" does not seem to convey or signify the true tragedy and senseless death of those killed, murdered, butchered, crucified, martyred, to my ear. In my mind it does not denote the amount of senseless suffering or tragedy associated with those types of deaths.

Like I said, not my problem that you don't like the term. It still applies, regardless of the force it does or does not carry.


The scriptures used explicit terms to record when Jesus and some of his Apostles were crucified and stoned; note it is not recorded that they just simply “died”.


:hehe: I love doing this to you...
Romans 8:34
who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

1 Thessalonians 4:14
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.




“When and where do we meet”! Hey, who said that? Get him out of here and throw his black paint can and six-shooter out with him! You’re not in Carthage anymore Alice.

We were better than them then and remain better than that today. We would never consider sanctioning such an atrocious act.

Yet Joseph sanctioned that atrocious and illegal act.


I guess it depends on the laws on the books and who is making the laws. Today we have laws that govern and punish one knowingly and intentionally publishing fantastic lies, slanderous and libel articles, and untrue damaging gossip.

Assuming that what was in there was libelous, which it was not. I read some excerpts of the Expositor and frankly it made me nauseous at the things Joseph was doing and saying. The more I learn of Joseph, the more nauseous it makes me. There was no virtue in him, only egotism and megalomania.


If they did it in my town, they would be turned over to the jailers running the jail in Carthage, IL, USA and they had better pray the 1844 style justice system is bygone. I guess this is where cold-blooded murder gives way to liable lawsuits and remedies that kick in nowadays. Who said society hasn't progressed.

Heh, don't think those Mormons weren't above forming a mob too. And they had the sherrif leading them into battle, with the support of the mayor.



Hey BtC, you misunderstood my request. I was requesting from you proof that he DID NOT send an order to destroy the printing press, NOT PROOF THAT HE DID! Help a guy out here! I don’t need you piling on! Did someone call “DOGPILE”?

Why on earth would I defend Joseph against things he did? I'm not Johnny Cochran after all... :noid:



Does not these small changes make your statement a little more accurate: In the opinion of an anti-Mormon or IMO “for the Mormons to put his death on par with the death of Jesus and for you to compare it to the Apostles' deaths is wrong”.

Nope. It is a false comparison and I have shown ample evidence that it is false.


There, that just sounds better to my ear and is in reality a much more accurate and true statement.

Good thing I'm not here to "tickle your ear" like a false prophet. The cold hard truth is that my statement is solid.



Why do you continually try and slide that false assumption by?

I have already proven that he fired in self-defense and was not granted the time to begin to become angry with his killers prior to being shot down in cold-blood.

Bologna. He was not acting in self defense. He was acting in anger after having to look at his dead brother and stepping over his brother's dead body. I don't blame him for being angry though, I'd be ticked off too. But that isn't the point. Your church compares his death to Jesus' and you can not deny it. And the proof is in the pudding. Jesus did not get angry, nor did he fight back, nor did he try to flee out of a window.



Anger as you and Crusader well know is a warm-blooded condition and takes time and forethought to develop which Joseph was not granted by those half-witted red-necked morons. Soooooooo stoooooooop iiiiiiiit!!!!!!!!!!


Sure he did. He had time to look at his dead brother, and that would tick anyone off quick, fast, and in a hurry!


Notice Peter didn’t stay Peter’s sword. Had Peter had a six-gun instead of a sword Jesus would have had to resurrect the dead and not just replace an ear.

Peter was not the object of your church's comparison to Joseph's death, so that misdirection you just tried can sit back down and wait for the next opportunity.


Some are from the mold of Peter and some are not. It is easy to tell who is to the discerning.

Here fishy fishy fishy... :fish: :trout:



Joseph and Peter had and have a lot in common (keys).


Too bad Peter isn't who your church compares Joseph's death to.


All this and I have yet to tackle your misleading statements regarding Jesus and His Israelite sheep. Next time I promise.

Oh boy, THIS I gotta see!!!

[Bill the Cat]

If you want an account of Joseph Smith's martyrdom, look here. (http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/ChrchHstryInst32502000/Chapters/ChrchHstryInst32502000_25.pdf) He was held at Carthage Jail for "treason" because he sent Nauvoo into martial law, and activated the legion in case the mobs tried attacking.

I know why he was charged. There was sufficient evidence to charge him and because he had not been before a magistrate, he had to be held until the magistrate arrived.


His arrest for "treason" was not legal,

He was charged with treason so had to stand trial for it. Arrests based on warrants are quite legal. If he was innocent, then he was simply wrongly accused, but holding someone for a charge where there is evidence is legal. He didn't think he had anything to worry about.


and was only a ruse to keep him in jail long enough for the mobs to kill him.

Governor Ford had nothing to do with it. He went to Nauvoo to collect the state owned weapons in the posession of the Nauvoo legion, which Joseph agreed to, and to encourage the Mormons not to retaliate against the state. The mob took advantage of his leaving to attack the jail.

[Krusader]

I think Bill the Cat said it all when he pointed out that Jesus told Peter to put away his sword. Jesus didn't run from the Garden, but went in a manly way to meet His destiny.

Smith had a gun smuggled in to his upper room, shot at the intruders, and jumped from a window leaving his brother's death body and two other Mormons behind.

This is the difference between One who genuinely loves His fellow men and a hireling.

[Nosnomis]

I think Bill the Cat said it all when he pointed out that Jesus told Peter to put away his sword. Jesus didn't run from the Garden, but went in a manly way to meet His destiny.

Smith had a gun smuggled in to his upper room, shot at the intruders, and jumped from a window leaving his brother's death body and two other Mormons behind.

This is the difference between One who genuinely loves His fellow men and a hireling.

To Crusader:
I would note that Joseph's falling out the window was what saved John Taylor and Willard Richard's life. When the mob heard Joseph go out the window, they rushed out the jail to make sure that he was dead. This had stopped them from coming into the room and killing John Taylor and Willard Richards, and gave the two brethren a chance to get into another room.

To Bill the Cat:
The gun smuggled to Smith was from one of Ford's Lt, not a LDS member. It was smuggled to him on the day that Ford left for Nauvoo. You say that Ford had nothing to do with it, when it was he who left the Carthage Greys to guard the jail and it was he who ordered Captain Dunn (who was in charge of the only troops that were neutral concerning the arrest of Joseph) to travel with him while he went to disarm the Mormons, and it was he who broke his promise that he would take Joseph and Hyrum with him when he went to Nauvoo. I am amazed that the members were so cooperative with their disarmment, when the last time they surrendered their weapons to a government, the weapons were given to those who had been attacking them in the first place. Oh wait, they were attacked again by the mob after Joseph had been martyred, and they were disarmed, and this time they did not have the weapons they needed, just like in Missouri.

Let me list the timeline of events.
June 24, Joseph and others surrender to Captain Dunn to respond to the charge of riot. When they reach Carthage, there are mobs shouting that they want to see "that d--n Joe Smith." When Captain Dunn gets them to the hotel where they are staying for the night, Governor Ford says to the mobs outside that they will get the chance to see him when he is paraded before the troops.

June 25, Joseph and others surrender to a constable named David Bettisworth on the charge of riot. Right after they surrender, they are charged with treason, on the basis of declaring martial law in Nauvoo. Let me ask you, is declaring martial law on a city that has mobs threatening to destroy it treasonable? When they did not do it in Missouri, they were driven out of a state.

At 8:30, they (Joseph and others) were paraded before the troops, where they endured death threats and insults.

At 4:00, they went to a preliminary hearing to answer to the charge of riot. All of them posted bail, and were told to arrive at the next term of the circuit court. While many of the other brethren left back for Nauvoo, Joseph and Hyrum went to an interview with Ford. While they were having dinner, they were presented with a mittimus signed by a justice who was also a member of the Carthage Greys, and was also strongly anti-mormon. This mittimus was so that they could be held until they could be tried for treason. The charge of treason was not mentioned at the hearing earlier at the afternoon. Crusader, you know law, right? Isn't there supposed to be a hearing for a charge before mittimus is signed? Yet the justice had it sent without the hearing. Doesn't that make the arrest illegal? When the Smiths told Ford of it, he mentioned that he could not interfere in a civil crime. Isn't treason a federal crime?

July 26, In the morning, Joseph had another interview with Ford, where he gave his reasons for destroying the press. I will quote it here.
Men may differ somewhat in theier opinions about it, but can it be supposed that after all the indignities to which we had been subjected outside, that this people could suffer a set of worthless vagabonds to come into our city, and right under our own eyes and protection, vilify and calumniate not only ourselves, but the character of our wives and daughters, as was impudently and unblushingly done in that infamous and filthy sheet? There is not a city in the United States that would have suffered such and indignity for twenty-four hours. This was taken from the book Joseph Smith and the Restoration.

It was during this discussion that Ford promised that if he were to go to Nauvoo, he would take Joseph with him. During this he also again pledged that Smith and the others would be kept safe.

After the interview, when one officer came to Ford and mentioned that the soldiers were determined to kill Joe Smith, Ford told him to keep such information to himself.

Later on in the day, the Carthage Greys came and demanded Joseph for a trial. When the jailor refused, they forced Joseph out and took him to a trial. The trial had to be delayed as there had not been enough time to get witnesses for the trial.

July 27, Frank Worrell tells Dan Jones, that he had best leave town before sundown or he will be killed along with Joe Smith, and that he could prophesy better than Joe Smith, in that he will be killed that day.

Dan Jones, on the way to tell Ford what he heard, hears a militia leader say that when Ford and the McDonough troops leave in the after-noon, they will return and kill the Smiths.

Ford when he hears this, says that Dan is just unnecessarily alarmed, and that the people are not that cruel.

When Jones tried to go back to the jail, he was refused entrance.

Before Ford leaves, one of his officers, named Cyrus Wheelock smuggles that gun that you are so fond of mentioning.

Ford leaves at 11:00, breaking his promise to Smith.

And then the actual martyrdom itself, occurring at 5:00.

[Krusader]

To Crusader:
I would note that Joseph's falling out the window was what saved John Taylor and Willard Richard's life. When the mob heard Joseph go out the window, they rushed out the jail to make sure that he was dead. This had stopped them from coming into the room and killing John Taylor and Willard Richards, and gave the two brethren a chance to get into another room.

To Bill the Cat:
The gun smuggled to Smith was from one of Ford's Lt, not a LDS member. It was smuggled to him on the day that Ford left for Nauvoo. You say that Ford had nothing to do with it, when it was he who left the Carthage Greys to guard the jail and it was he who ordered Captain Dunn (who was in charge of the only troops that were neutral concerning the arrest of Joseph) to travel with him while he went to disarm the Mormons, and it was he who broke his promise that he would take Joseph and Hyrum with him when he went to Nauvoo. I am amazed that the members were so cooperative with their disarmment, when the last time they surrendered their weapons to a government, the weapons were given to those who had been attacking them in the first place. Oh wait, they were attacked again by the mob after Joseph had been martyred, and they were disarmed, and this time they did not have the weapons they needed, just like in Missouri.

Let me list the timeline of events.
June 24, Joseph and others surrender to Captain Dunn to respond to the charge of riot. When they reach Carthage, there are mobs shouting that they want to see "that d--n Joe Smith." When Captain Dunn gets them to the hotel where they are staying for the night, Governor Ford says to the mobs outside that they will get the chance to see him when he is paraded before the troops.

June 25, Joseph and others surrender to a constable named David Bettisworth on the charge of riot. Right after they surrender, they are charged with treason, on the basis of declaring martial law in Nauvoo. Let me ask you, is declaring martial law on a city that has mobs threatening to destroy it treasonable? When they did not do it in Missouri, they were driven out of a state.

At 8:30, they (Joseph and others) were paraded before the troops, where they endured death threats and insults.

At 4:00, they went to a preliminary hearing to answer to the charge of riot. All of them posted bail, and were told to arrive at the next term of the circuit court. While many of the other brethren left back for Nauvoo, Joseph and Hyrum went to an interview with Ford. While they were having dinner, they were presented with a mittimus signed by a justice who was also a member of the Carthage Greys, and was also strongly anti-mormon. This mittimus was so that they could be held until they could be tried for treason. The charge of treason was not mentioned at the hearing earlier at the afternoon. Crusader, you know law, right? Isn't there supposed to be a hearing for a charge before mittimus is signed? Yet the justice had it sent without the hearing. Doesn't that make the arrest illegal? When the Smiths told Ford of it, he mentioned that he could not interfere in a civil crime. Isn't treason a federal crime?

July 26, In the morning, Joseph had another interview with Ford, where he gave his reasons for destroying the press. I will quote it here.
Men may differ somewhat in theier opinions about it, but can it be supposed that after all the indignities to which we had been subjected outside, that this people could suffer a set of worthless vagabonds to come into our city, and right under our own eyes and protection, vilify and calumniate not only ourselves, but the character of our wives and daughters, as was impudently and unblushingly done in that infamous and filthy sheet? There is not a city in the United States that would have suffered such and indignity for twenty-four hours. This was taken from the book Joseph Smith and the Restoration.

It was during this discussion that Ford promised that if he were to go to Nauvoo, he would take Joseph with him. During this he also again pledged that Smith and the others would be kept safe.

After the interview, when one officer came to Ford and mentioned that the soldiers were determined to kill Joe Smith, Ford told him to keep such information to himself.

Later on in the day, the Carthage Greys came and demanded Joseph for a trial. When the jailor refused, they forced Joseph out and took him to a trial. The trial had to be delayed as there had not been enough time to get witnesses for the trial.

July 27, Frank Worrell tells Dan Jones, that he had best leave town before sundown or he will be killed along with Joe Smith, and that he could prophesy better than Joe Smith, in that he will be killed that day.

Dan Jones, on the way to tell Ford what he heard, hears a militia leader say that when Ford and the McDonough troops leave in the after-noon, they will return and kill the Smiths.

Ford when he hears this, says that Dan is just unnecessarily alarmed, and that the people are not that cruel.

When Jones tried to go back to the jail, he was refused entrance.

Before Ford leaves, one of his officers, named Cyrus Wheelock smuggles that gun that you are so fond of mentioning.

Ford leaves at 11:00, breaking his promise to Smith.

And then the actual martyrdom itself, occurring at 5:00.


Jeth, he didn't FALL from the window. Eyewitnesses say he jumped from the window. While jumping, he gave the Masonc distress call, "Is there no help for the widow's son." Also, the gun was smuggled to him by a guest while he was in custody. Another gun was given to Hyrum, probably before they entered Carthage jail. There were two guns. Read, "Emma Smith Hale, Mormon Enigma," for a more objective account of things than the pasturized stuff you get out of the Church.

[Bill the Cat]

To Crusader:
I would note that Joseph's falling out the window was what saved John Taylor and Willard Richard's life. When the mob heard Joseph go out the window, they rushed out the jail to make sure that he was dead. This had stopped them from coming into the room and killing John Taylor and Willard Richards, and gave the two brethren a chance to get into another room.

Funny, you act like Joseph running away to jump out the window was purposefully to save Richards and Taylor's lives. They were not the target of the mob, so when Joseph was no longer in the room, the interest in the room faded.


To Bill the Cat:
The gun smuggled to Smith was from one of Ford's Lt, not a LDS member. It was smuggled to him on the day that Ford left for Nauvoo. You say that Ford had nothing to do with it, when it was he who left the Carthage Greys to guard the jail

They were the local militia, so it was their job to guard the jail. Heck, even Joseph was not too worried about the Greys. From his letter to Emma:


This morning Gov. Ford introduced myself & Hyrum to The malitia, in a very appropriate manner as Gen. Joseph Smith & General Hyrum Smith. There was a little mutiny among the "Carthage Greys"; but I think the Gov. has & will succeed in enforcing the laws.



and it was he who ordered Captain Dunn (who was in charge of the only troops that were neutral concerning the arrest of Joseph) to travel with him while he went to disarm the Mormons,

Again, something Joseph wasn't worried about.


N. B. Governor Ford has just concluded to send some of his malitia to Nauvoo to protect the citizens, & I wish that I they may be kindly treated. They will co-operate with the police to keep the peace of the city


and it was he who broke his promise that he would take Joseph and Hyrum with him when he went to Nauvoo.

He had no legal recourse. Treason was a stiff crime and legally if he would have let Joseph leave, he would have broken the law. He was confident that the law would win out.


I am amazed that the members were so cooperative with their disarmment, when the last time they surrendered their weapons to a government, the weapons were given to those who had been attacking them in the first place.

Of course they surrendered their arms. They belonged to the state. And Joseph was THERE as they were being surrendered. From his letter to Gov. Ford:

on my way to Carthage to answer your Request, this morning, I have met Capt Dunn who has made known to me your order to surrender the state arms in possession of the Nauvoo Legion, which demand I shall most cheerfully comply with, and that the same may be done properly and without trouble to the state I shall return with Capt Dunn to Nauvoo, see that the arms are put in his possession, and shall then return to head quarters in his company, when I shall most cheerfully submit to any requisition of the Governor of our state



Oh wait, they were attacked again by the mob after Joseph had been martyred, and they were disarmed, and this time they did not have the weapons they needed, just like in Missouri.

And they attacked the "gentiles" there too until most of the 13,000 of them left with Brigham Young. Don't pretend to act like the Mormons were innocent fawns who never struck back nor instigated anything. The existence of the Danites proves otherwise.



Let me list the timeline of events.
June 24, Joseph and others surrender to Captain Dunn to respond to the charge of riot. When they reach Carthage, there are mobs shouting that they want to see "that d--n Joe Smith." When Captain Dunn gets them to the hotel where they are staying for the night, Governor Ford says to the mobs outside that they will get the chance to see him when he is paraded before the troops.

Yet, by Joseph's own words, he was presented respectfully.


June 25, Joseph and others surrender to a constable named David Bettisworth on the charge of riot. Right after they surrender, they are charged with treason, on the basis of declaring martial law in Nauvoo. Let me ask you, is declaring martial law on a city that has mobs threatening to destroy it treasonable? When they did not do it in Missouri, they were driven out of a state.


When you have a force that is almost as large as the entire U.S. Army, it can be considered a hostile act. The Mormon record of violence also preceeded them.


At 8:30, they (Joseph and others) were paraded before the troops, where they endured death threats and insults.


Yet Joseph spoke positively of the encounter, calling it "a little mutiny", as I quoted above.


At 4:00, they went to a preliminary hearing to answer to the charge of riot. All of them posted bail, and were told to arrive at the next term of the circuit court. While many of the other brethren left back for Nauvoo, Joseph and Hyrum went to an interview with Ford. While they were having dinner, they were presented with a mittimus signed by a justice who was also a member of the Carthage Greys, and was also strongly anti-mormon.

The mittimus was legally obtained and served.


This mittimus was so that they could be held until they could be tried for treason. The charge of treason was not mentioned at the hearing earlier at the afternoon. Crusader, you know law, right? Isn't there supposed to be a hearing for a charge before mittimus is signed?

No. The mittimus is the order to detain and transport. The prosecutor just needs to appear before the judge and present the case and evidence. After it is served, then comes the formal hearing. The hearing was scheduled for Saturday.


Yet the justice had it sent without the hearing. Doesn't that make the arrest illegal? When the Smiths told Ford of it, he mentioned that he could not interfere in a civil crime. Isn't treason a federal crime?

Joseph was under the arrest of the constable, not the governor. Ford didn't want to usurp the judicial branch's authority. He also was condemning of Joseph and the city council of Nauvoo taking judicial law into their own hands. He was a stickler for not interfering with the other branches of gov't.


July 26, In the morning, Joseph had another interview with Ford, where he gave his reasons for destroying the press. I will quote it here.
Men may differ somewhat in theier opinions about it, but can it be supposed that after all the indignities to which we had been subjected outside, that this people could suffer a set of worthless vagabonds to come into our city, and right under our own eyes and protection, vilify and calumniate not only ourselves, but the character of our wives and daughters, as was impudently and unblushingly done in that infamous and filthy sheet? There is not a city in the United States that would have suffered such and indignity for twenty-four hours. This was taken from the book Joseph Smith and the Restoration.

And is a poor reason and was determined an illegal oppression of first ammendment rights.


It was during this discussion that Ford promised that if he were to go to Nauvoo, he would take Joseph with him. During this he also again pledged that Smith and the others would be kept safe.

And to the best of his ability, he tried.


After the interview, when one officer came to Ford and mentioned that the soldiers were determined to kill Joe Smith, Ford told him to keep such information to himself.

Unfounded affidavit by a Mormon, Alfred Randall in 1855 in Salt Lake City. Amazing that no disinterested party ever acknowledged that any threats were made known to Gov. Ford other than from Joseph's mouth. ANd Gov. Ford was confident that they would not be harmed, as wrong as he was.


Later on in the day, the Carthage Greys came and demanded Joseph for a trial. When the jailor refused, they forced Joseph out and took him to a trial. The trial had to be delayed as there had not been enough time to get witnesses for the trial.

July 27, Frank Worrell tells Dan Jones, that he had best leave town before sundown or he will be killed along with Joe Smith, and that he could prophesy better than Joe Smith, in that he will be killed that day.

Dan Jones, on the way to tell Ford what he heard, hears a militia leader say that when Ford and the McDonough troops leave in the after-noon, they will return and kill the Smiths.


Captain Dan Jones' words... no proof that they actually occurred.


Ford when he hears this, says that Dan is just unnecessarily alarmed, and that the people are not that cruel.


His instructions to them were plain. Leave the Smiths alone. He was confident they would obey. Unfortunately, they did not. Because of this, Ford resigned.


When Jones tried to go back to the jail, he was refused entrance

After trying to stir up the Governor, I'm not surprised.


Before Ford leaves, one of his officers, named Cyrus Wheelock smuggles that gun that you are so fond of mentioning.

Cyrus Wheelock was an elder in the Mormon church. He did not belong to Ford. He was even dispatched by Joseph to go to Nauvoo to procure witnesses, and before he left, he gave the pistol to Joseph.


Ford leaves at 11:00, breaking his promise to Smith.

And then the actual martyrdom itself, occurring at 5:00.

I appreciate the opportunity to look into the events leading up to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum. I have, again, learned much.

[Krusader]

LDS True, are you really asking me whether or not I have been to a southwestern Dude ranch? Do you know where I live? In remote Southwestern New Mexico - I've had more interaction with steers and wildlife then you can shake a stick at boy. You're spirit of propehcy may need some oiling!!!! C

[LDSTrue]

LDS True, are you really asking me whether or not I have been to a southwestern Dude ranch? Do you know where I live? In remote Southwestern New Mexico - I've had more interaction with steers and wildlife then you can shake a stick at boy. You're spirit of propehcy may need some oiling!!!! C

Hey Cru from California::cool:

It’s good to hear from you!:stunned:

I arrived back at my home last night with a huge appetite for some dessert and what to my surprise did I find? That’s right, NO COOKIES!!!!!:bawl:

Where are the cookies you promised???:sad: This disappointment is very difficult to bear:frown: as I drove 750 miles only thinking of fresh baked COOKIES when I arrive, YUM YUM!:yipee:

“remote Southwestern New Mexico” is only a day away, :idea:does FedX come to mind?!!!:idea:
(I’ll just bet you would trade some of your cookies for some of our humidity):woohoo:

You’re right, I don’t kneed them and I could stand to loose a few pounds. I didn’t think it showed. “You're spirit of propehcy” seems to be working just fine, painfully speaking.:demure:

What do you say, maybe after I loose a few pounds?:flowers:

I will try and post today but no promise as I have a lot of catch-up at work. I am going to hire an aid so I can devote more Company time to my personal endeavors like BtC.:poke::hehe:

“… till we meet again …”

STILL LDSTrue!:cool:

PS: Is there a limit on the amount of....and did I exceed it?:innocent: :angel:

[Sparko]

LDS True, I split your last post about the "other sheep" and the following post after that to a new separate thread where you all can delve into it in depth. The link is:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=63169

[Krusader]

Hey Cru from California::cool:

It’s good to hear from you!:stunned:

I arrived back at my home last night with a huge appetite for some dessert and what to my surprise did I find? That’s right, NO COOKIES!!!!!:bawl:

?!!!:idea:
(I’ll just bet you would trade some of your cookies for some of our humidity):woohoo:

:hehe:

“… till we meet again …”

STILL LDSTrue!:cool:

PS: Is there a limit on the amount of....and did I exceed it?:innocent: :angel:

LDS True: Baptist cookies are available after services at our Church. There, you can hear the Gospel preached........after service, you can pray to the Lord for wisdom, and ask Him about the truthfulness of the message. Or, better yet, compare it with the Bible and see if it's off base. So, FED-X yourself to NM and listen to some good Gospel preaching.